swansont

How about addressing the clock experiment I have brought up twice.

So this implies that you think these other terms are constant, but hbar and c are variable. Why is this? Why aren’t you saying charge is variable, too? Why not? The effect is on rates, so one clock evolving at a faster rate will accumulate more phase. (i.e. time) This can be directly compared to a reference clock.

A shift in the frequency emitted by a photon means the transition in question has shifted by that amount, and you're saying the shift is in the opposite direction predicted by GR (you say the lower system has a higher frequency). Is that correct? 2 problems with this: 1. If the frequency shift is predicted to be two times as large, then what happens if you just don't send a signal, so there is no photon. You move a clock to a certain height and let it accumulate a difference in time, and then move it back to the reference point, and check. No photon to worry about, and there's a factor of 2 difference in the predicted effect. Easy to observe. (Yes, the experiment has been done.) Therefore, easy to disprove the conjecture. 2. I don't think this having asymmetric shifts is consistent with the Pound-Rebka effect. You have the photon shift of one value, but the resonance of the atom has shifted by a different value.

That's what you're trying to show, so it does not "follow" in that what joigus stated is part of standard electrodynamics. The speed of light can vary for other reasons, such as from the change in index when it's in a medium. It also deviates from the invariant value if you are in an accelerated frame of reference. OK, so what's the prediction about the net effect on time? How is gravitational redshift an "illusion"? Why do we get good agreement with the GR formula if there is this other effect of opposite sign?

As joigus said, you have given the definition of the fine structure constant. You haven’t presented any connection between GR and QM. Did they measure this? Did they do it in free space? The key here is “irrefutable proof” Science doesn’t deal in proof, and is never irrefutable. They will never pay out, since they have a way out of doing so.

You can’t summarize?

The devil’s in the details. How do you do this? Why are existing experiments insufficient to confirm relativity? Where does Yanchilin's formula come from? Why is it necessarily correct if GR is correct? How do you arrive at that interpretation? They measured the magnetic field near a black hole binary, not the permeability of free space.

No. Why would you think so? What are the mental gymnastics involved in such a question? Oh, FFS. It’s hardly an argument, when it contains intellectual dishonesty

Where did this red herring come from? We’re not talking about all criminal activity, we’re talking about police, who are supposed to protect and serve the public, and who should be held to a higher standard. We’re also talking about violent behavior. That’s not an instance of excessive force. I was short of straw before but now I have a lifetime supply. Sure. But you had only proposed screening for white supremacy Yes. If they had not tolerated such behavior, you might say...

Which wouldn’t have stopped George Floyd’s death, apparently. Zero tolerance for excessive force behavior, regardless of motivation, might have.

When one says “casts doubt”x it’s usually to deflect a claim. Does the motivation for police killing an unarmed, handcuffed, black man matter? Or are we only trying to stop white supremacist cops from taking black lives?

Was it alleged that he was? Does that make a difference?

! Moderator Note Hijack has been split to the appropriate thread https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72263-is-nature-playing-fair-with-krauss-object/

! Moderator Note Posts on discussing racism have been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/122395-discussing-racism-split-from-the-killing-of-george-floyd-the-last-straw/ Other trollish/hijack posts and replies have been moved to the trash

! Moderator Note One of our rules (see rule 2.7 in "guidelines" under the "browse" tab) is that just posting a video is insufficient; you have to post enough material on your own to make the argument. "Did you watch the whole video" is not an acceptable response. ! Moderator Note Tread lightly here, lest you violate rule 2.1

San Liu and HelloKitty Girl have been banned as sockpuppets of mcmiller

bryozoa has been banned for racist commentary

At some point when there are more outliers, they aren’t outliers anymore

Moving the goalposts. You’re talking about a scenario before he was apprehended. He was handcuffed. Presumably frisked. How many guns does a person have access to while handcuffed by police? How was he a threat to shoot anyone? Which isn’t the issue here. But for the sake of argument, let’s say he had a gun before being disarmed and handcuffed. Would that justify the policeman’s actions?

Which irrelevant to the incident being discussed. Unarmed and handcuffed. You could, I dunno, ask the people to disperse as a first effort. You could avoid being the ones to initiate violence.

bryozoa has earned a short suspension for some posts that are rather astounding in their level of denial and appeal to conspiracy

Great, you’ve watched Robocop. Will you answer the question?

You like it when police are brutal? What circumstance justifies being brutal?

Anthropogenic Global Warming.

I doubt that this will exert the desired pressure at the national level; that will require follow-through in November. Locally, though, some governments are listening. Others, not so much. (I wonder if de Blasio will bother running for reelection)