swansont

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.

No. There's no physics there, just some terminology tossed together, devoid (as far as I can tell) of any real meaning.

And there's a limit to what we can "see" and that may or may not tell us what something "looks like" (which is what the OP asked) e.g. the size of electron from scattering experiments is smaller than (IIRC) 10^-18m. We can't measure a smaller number We can get an image from sonar or radar, but again, the size and shape we reconstruct may not reflect reality. It wouldn't tell us what color the object is (Something that doesn't preferentially absorb a particular wavelength range of photons isn't going to have a color). It doesn't tell us what it looks like, which is a visual limitation. "What does it look like" is a quasi-classical inquiry, and like other aspects of classical physics, it loses meaning at small scales.

Not only are the trio of orbitals symmetric, but you don't have a preferred axis in the absence of some external field. So the orbitals can be oriented in any direction in space. You can't say which p orbital the electron is in, so it's in all of them until you measure. IOW, you don't have an intrinsic electric dipole moment, as I posted earlier. Going back to the OP, these particles don't really "look" like anything since we can't form an image of them. Even the Sr ion doesn't "look" like anything based on the light it's giving off. A neutral Sr atom is a few hundred pm in radius, but the light being emitted is around half a micron. You wouldn't be able to determine the size based on that light. What it "looks" like really only makes sense for objects where diffraction is not important. We can use other particles that can have much shorter wavelengths, e.g. electron microscopes, in order to form an image. We can get other information by reconstructing what happens with e.g. scattering experiments. But because of quantum mechanical effects, everything will have a wave behavior, and the notion of what it "looks" like loses meaning. We talk about how it behaves — how it interacts — and what its properties are. Elementary particles are depicted as balls in diagrams because that's a way to visualize interactions. You could look at Feynman diagrams to see various interactions between particles. But it's like a schematic of a circuit — that's not necessarily what the actual circuit looks like,

In the US, the EPA classified CO2 (back around 2007, confirmed by supreme court ruling) as a pollutant and therefore had the authority to regulate it, but there was pushback. The supreme court ruled in 2014 that the EPA could regulate carbon emissions. But there was never any will to do anything for the environment under the Trump administration. Trump reversed Obama policies on the matter (as he did on so many issues)

I don't see any physics in there. It's word salad.

Relativity is a notion in physics that some variables depend on the frame of reference in which they are measured. Einstein developed the theories of special and general relativity to deal with mechanics and its dependence on reference frames (GR incorporates gravity) As a theory it makes predictions and has been extensively tested, and is supported by these experimental results. It's not an ideology.