swansont

Where I live there are "speed hump" signs. I thought those were called a "quickie"

We’re a science site. So it should not be surprising that we require science.

I listed them. Diffraction, interference, etc.

Then show it works for cases where we see wave behavior.

A “theory” that only works for isolated cases isn’t correct. Like Phlogiston.

Yes. What YOU said was I don't see anything in there about the time gap; you are clearly discussing the concept, not the timing. I never discussed the conceptual details or suggested they could not be distinguished. Do better.

That’s not what I said. I don’t know how you come to this conclusion.

I think Hertz did more than one experiment, so “Hertz experiment” doesn’t narrow things down all that much. You have to look at experiments that aren’t explained by photons. i.e. you can’t cherry-pick. Explain diffraction, interference, Faraday rotation, etc. with photons. Reflection, refraction. All of the wave behavior. Wait, idealized systems can’t be used in physics? Who came up with that rule? (it was you, wasn’t it)

Both the in-flight and layover durations were not the same, so one would expect to accumulate a different timing discrepancy, since it's the product of frequency and duration. 1. Isolated in the theory. This particular experiment could not fully distinguish between them, but by flying in opposite directions and thus having two different speeds, it shows the kinematic effect quite clearly when comparing the two data sets, and both being consistent with the overall confirms the gravitational effect. (and, of course, we have other experiments we could look at) 2. Clocks on the ground are not at rest; since the earth rotates it is not an inertial reference frame. Clocks moving east move the fastest. (if the plane flew at the right speed, a westbound plane could have zero velocity with respect to a quasi-inertial observer at rest with respect to the earth. The effect of the orbital path not being inertial is very small here and ignored.) Galileo 1632 vs Einstein 1905. I'd say that's centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

There’s plenty of evidence that EM waves exist. And any physics theory has to fit with other models. None of it exists in a silo.

Electrodynamics had an invariant speed of EM radiation first. What does the EM wave equation look like in your theory?

Both. And you failed to quote anything that supports it. A problem here is that there is a tendency to fill in the blanks of some stories in order to make sense of it and make it seem plausible. If you claim it, it’s up to you to present the evidence.

Where does the CDC say this? Not a lot of Google hits. One is from http://www.co.iroquois.il.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Iroquois-County-COVID-19-Preparedness-and-Response_PR_032520.pdf which is from last March, when testing was severely constrained, and was prioritized for people with symptoms Resident expert titles are not self-bestowed. It’s a designation made by the staff, based on demonstrated ability (and possibly credentials) that the person possesses expertise in the field.

A reminder that Science News is for news - we expect a link to a news article, and a summary. If you can’t provide that, there’s an excellent chance your thread shouldn’t go there.

! Moderator Note Not science news. Moved

In classical physics, one can often ascribe a trajectory to the solution using energy. Not so much with QM. The kinematics equation s = v0t + 1/2 at^2 explicitly has a velocity in it, but there is no corresponding QM equation.

Not really. Look at how many times he cites himself. That can be a sign of bootstrapping nonsense. When you're building up a house of cards it doesn't matter if you have one or two solid pieces in the foundation.

There is generally no interaction between entangled particles. It’s not obvious to me that gravitational time dilation would have any effect on the entanglement.

Yes. Energy terms. Position. Not trajectories - not motion.

Ferrying water into space is not evaporation. You would be moving a relatively small amount of thermal energy, that won’t cool anything, at the cost of a lot of propulsion energy. Escape velocity is ~11 km/s, so you need 1/2 v^2 of energy, minimum, to get 1 kg of mass away from the earth. Roughly 6 x 10^7 joules. Moving a kg of water doesn’t cool anything off - no reduction in temperature. If you remove a bucket of water from a pool, the pool isn’t any cooler. It’s marginally easier to heat up for the same energy being added. You would have to heat the water up, and at 4.18 kj/kg-C, it’s going to be a lot less than the energy cost of the propulsion.

Bad stretch of weather? Pollution? Smoke of a distant fire?

Not motion, as such. There’s no trajectory information there. Location and momentum (probabilities) and energy and angular momentum (eigenvalues) can be found.

I have to call BS on this.

The Google results for "Spin Conjugate Dynamics" gives ~10 results and the top 3 are from the author of the paper (and I think that other hits are referencing the paper). That's...not good. IMO it's not the writing quality, as such, it's fiction vs non-fiction.

I've not run across these terms before. The Google results for them suggest they are made up.