swansont

Will you be showing us either of the following 1. a derivation of the time dilation equation from QM 2. a way to test your conjecture in a way that is independent of relativity, or present evidence that already exists that fits this criterion I ask because if you don’t, the thread has to be closed as it does not conform to the speculations rules, which requires a model and/or evidence.

! Moderator Note Nope.Your “new model of the universe” discussion was closed. You don’t get to invoke it here - you used up your chances to support that idea already, and you didn’t.

Not a lot you can do with it, other than delivering it to loads. But in doing so you have to heat up water, which acts as a buffer for variations in demand. If you increase power demand, the first thing that happens is the temperature of the water drops. The reactor fission rate increases as a result, but there’s a lag in the output (it takes time for water to complete a loop through the system) Naval reactors have some design differences compared with commercial ones. Commercial reactors are designed to run at near peak power, without much variation. The much smaller one on a sub is designed to respond the changes in load. (Carrier plants are bigger, so the size-related design constraints are lessened) In some ships/boats. Not “typically” as such. “The Russian, US and British navies rely on direct steam turbine propulsion, while French and Chinese ships use the turbine to generate electricity for propulsion”

! Moderator Note The argument if whether positive and negative is arbitrary must be addressed using mainstream physics, not a speculation. To frame it this way is an end run around our rules. If you have a speculation, present it and support it with evidence. You can’t just assume it’s true to buttress some other argument

A lot of the delay in these processes were accommodations to travel time in days of yore. Consider having to take a slow train across the country to deliver papers (e.g. electoral college ballots) 140 years ago or, before that, making a trip on a stagecoach. And this is after hand-counting ballots in each state, and certifying the elections. I’m guessing that took weeks, back in the day.

That’s what I was thinking. Have fun!

If you were lifting at the CoM, this wouldn't matter at all, and it's only an issue if there's significant mass that is off-center. Is the lower edge of the panel resting on the base? If so, is it fixed or does it slide as you raise the actuator?

"By adding heat to the system, engineers were able to combine carbon dioxide with hydrogen, split from water, to produce a few grams of liquid fuel that the authors say could work in a jet engine. " Sooooo where does that heat come from? How are they splitting the hydrogen? The article is rather coy about the conservation of energy issues with this.

It's not elaborate. There are principle like this that are simple ways of summarizing how particles behave under a set of conditions. Light and the principle of least time (Fermat's principle), which is a truth about the path light will take, without discussing the particulars of indices of refraction. Related to the principle of least action for mechanics. Don't anthropomorphize the particles. They hate that.

The center of mass of the panel itself should be the center of the panel, if it's flat. It should be simple geometry to locate the offset from the center of rotation — r cos(theta) — i.e. (the maximum would be for the panel facing the horizon One solution to keeping the CoM over the rotation axis is using a counterweight. Is the actuator's function to change the angle of the panel?

Not reflection. It's absorption and emission as the electron drops into a different state. You might investigate what is already done, and why that works. MRIs work because it's microwaves and magnetic fields, which can penetrate the skull. PET scans work because the ingested material concentrates in the cells under investigation and the positrons can penetrate the skull.

It is also, as far as I can tell, not spatially-resolved process Agree. There was mention of nanometer scale imaging, and I don't know how you do that with micron wavelength light.

OK, but you didn't say you were doing Raman spectroscopy; how does this give you depth/location information? Reflected or absorbed? MRI and PET don't image the brain? Microscopes give nanoscale resolution? Lasers are not magnetrons. How does the magnetron fit into this scheme? You mentioned power source, which makes no sense.

What causes the different wavelengths to be emitted, for this imaging?

The results that you are describing are those of relativity, which means that it will not support your model Then there’s no way to confirm your model with a clock experiment They aren’t decay events. That’s not how typical Cs atomic clocks using the Ramsey method work. And it’s well-known in the community that no two clocks will remain synchronized. There’s always frequency noise. This is ignored in relativity, though, since you’re looking at an idealized system. In a practical sense, it means your clock stability needs to be sufficient so that the random walk is small compared to the accumulated phase from the dilation. So this is irrelevant to the discussion What is relevant is if you can derive the Lorentz factor for time dilation from quantum theory.

Relativity already predicts this. Can you derive the Lorentz factor for time dilation from quantum theory? Otherwise this path has no substance to it. It’s all hand-waving.

I imagine magnetrons were uses as sources of excitation when better sources we not (yet) available, but a better question might be whether spectroscopy tells you anything interesting, regardless of the source. Why limit your options? Also, using “powered” or “power source” seems wrong in this context.

Yes, because you can’t prove a negative Because this effect does not depend on the details of the clock. You can’t engineer a way to reduce or eliminate the effect And you would be right. It’s not a physical mechanism. Sure he did: c is the same in all inertial frames, and physics is, too. Time dilation and length contraction are consequences of that. But that’s not evidence that supports your idea, since it also supports relativity. You need a prediction that works only for your idea. You should be aware that water clocks were/are actual clocks. Not great ones, in the scheme of things, but people used them to tell time. Like in the Hafele-Keating experiment. Which confirmed relativity. (edit: xpost) Technically not the way they work, but it’s not particularly relevant to the discussion.

If the events are ticks of the clock, I don’t see your point. You get fewer ticks because time slowed down. There’s no physical mechanism in play that could cause this. If you have an alternative model, you need to present it. Your “quantum events” description is far too nebulous to count as a model, and you have presented no evidence to support it.

Yes it is, and impeachment is one thing that can’t be pardoned by the president, so it seems to me that impeaching him for this and (other) federal crimes would be a good idea, just in case he tries to pardon himself. But congress won’t do it at this point. Election tampering is also a state crime, so Georgia can indict and seal the indictment for a couple weeks. And GA and NY officials can wrestle for being first in line to cuff him on the 20th, just after noon.

Yes, that’s a better way of saying it.

You don’t need these nearby to observe time dilation. No events giving rise to decay would be consistent with this. But we do: relativity My objection is to the “relative” part, as you are dismissing relativity. Yes, this is what relativity says. Does length exist without an observable object? Is there a length between two points in unoccupied space? It can be measured. Time is a measurable property of one observable duration with reference to another (clock) Not contentious and has been directly measured. Again, the effect is there in empty space, so no quantum events nearby

You’re describing photons out of phase, which would destructively interfere, so more information about the situation is needed. “Support of momentum law” makes no sense.

Yes, sorry, I thought the “on a scale that might affect the outcome” was understood, since that’s what Trump is alleging. Several examples of republicans committing voter fraud have come to light.

The problem is Trump committing election tampering, not fraud, and as he has no evidence of election fraud being committed, how can he legitimately believe it?