swansont

The best science we have tells us the conditions under which massive objects might move faster than c, and we have no evidence that anything fits these conditions.

Why do you think it would? But we were talking about a vapor of alkali atoms. Spinning and translating are not the same thing. They are orthogonal degrees of freedom. That’s a matter of how often you interact, not the frequency of the light. Absorbing a photon is a single event. Pushed in the opposite direction of the laser? That would violate conservation of momentum. No. Alignment and coherence are very different things.

3.846×10^26 W https://phys.org/news/2015-12-sun-energy.html

No.

Why would you? Do you have any physics reason for this? No, not so much.

! Moderator Note Posting a video by itself, with no discussion, violates rule 2.7 “...members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone.” Try again

This is pretty much all wrong An atom doesn’t have to be locked in position - you’re trying to slow it down! It’s moving! The resonance frequency is not 500 MHz, as I have stated multiple times MRI and trapping are very different, yet you continue to represent them as almost interchangeable A laser is not “there as a doppler shift” - that makes no sense. Neither does “other side of the laser, leaving 500MHz acting as its resonance frequency” You aren’t going to piece this together without understanding the fundamentals on which it’s based, and it’s pretty obvious you don’t.

A number of sites have made a similar point about the relatively small area needed for this https://www.businessinsider.com/map-shows-solar-panels-to-power-the-earth-2015-9 There are, of course, other problems one would have to solve (e.g. getting the energy to its destination, storage, etc.)

Stars don’t leave grooves, for there is nothing there that can have grooves. Stars warp spacetime, because they have energy and momentum, but that’s not dark matter.

! Moderator Note 1. Advertising your speculation in another thread is against the rules 2. You have a thread for discussion of time, and you were told “This thread is now the only place where michel123456 may discuss topics related to time and relativity”

I don’t understand the question. This is objective, not subjective. 85% of the matter in the universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter Will you explain what you mean by “grooves left by stars”?

I think flimsy also means flexible. The shoulder normally has a fairly wide range of motion. https://www.ortho.wustl.edu/content/Patient-Care/3138/Services/Shoulder-Elbow/Overview/Shoulder-Instability-Information/The-Anatomy-of-the-Shoulder.aspx

! Moderator Note You should start a new thread to ask this question, rather than hijack this one.

! Moderator Note Yes, it was, and yet you’ve opened a new thread. Don’t do it again. The common theme is James Maxlow's theory of "Earth Expansion Tectonics that you brought up. One thread per topic.

If it has mass, then we can say it’s matter, since that’s one of the properties that define matter. “grooves left by stars”?

I think people are conflating time and time measurement, and I will reiterate: Is there a testable hypothesis here? A model, or evidence?

! Moderator Note Threads merged

What part of GR states this?

Is there a testable hypothesis here? A model, or evidence?

No, it isn’t. The technique is called electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT). The problem here is that the article you read was filtered through the reporter and watered down. Information was omitted. But you won’t notice this if you lack understanding of the physics involved. You just see the buzzwords, and compare them to other buzzwords. It’s like using Cliff Notes for literature. Reading a summary of the book rather than the book itself. There are difference between the experiments, but AFAIK using EIT is not one of the differences. (it would be nice to check, but you need to link to journal papers or the ArXiv preprint to see those details)

You’re just trolling me now.

Not making a dent, am I?

780 nm is the resonance for Rb. The resonance frequency for Rb is ~3.85 x 10^14Hz. (that’s 780 nm) Because the atoms are moving, there is a Doppler shift, that resonance can be higher or lower, depending on that motion. The Doppler shift is up to 500 MHz for a significant fraction of the atoms*, so to be resonant with some of them, you need to be within 500 MHz of 3.85 x 10^14Hz. *the atoms move with speeds that depend on temperature. It’s a distribution of speeds; some move fast, some slow.

Right. The motion of the atom means it will absorb light at a lower frequency than its resonance frequency. For the emitted photons, for every redshifted photon you would get a blueshifted one, on average. The resonance is not at 500 MHz. I explained this. That’s how wide the resonance is - if you are within 500 MHz of the resonance, the photon has the highest chance of absorption.

This reminds me of those folks who insist that their perpetual motion machine will work, and won’t listen to anyone who tells them different. Yes, the doppler shift will be changed slightly. That’s why you need millions of photon scatters to slow an atom to close to zero velocity - the imparted momentum from a single photon is small. p=E/c, and c is a big number. If the cloud is big, light won’t penetrate unless it’s being re-emitted, and that’s in a random direction. Light from random direction won’t cause slowing; there’s no net force being applied It’s usually described in terms of the force, which is in the direction of the laser (looking at a 1-D example). But yes, the emitted light would be slightly more energetic.