swansont

Why? These would seem to be pretty much orthogonal. One can be a gifted researcher and a bigot, and also a stealer of lab notes. And getting or taking credit for others’ work is not an uncommon occurrence. PIs, for example, routinely get credit for work done by their students, even when they are doing far more administrative work than research.

This suggests it’s based on your preposterous misunderstanding of the situation and not on actual observation. IOW, you’re just making it up. Interesting detail, but I think the gross misconceptions on display are unrelated to this. LLMs are not reliable sources of information One misconception on display is that somehow we’re seeing distant things as they are right now, which is contradicted by mounds of evidence. Distant stars might not be there anymore, as we see them, as they could have gone supernova in the years it takes for light to get to us. We routinely have to account for delays for various electromagnetic signals. You can detect where a break in a fiber-optic cable is using a time-delay reflectometer (important for telling you which manhole is closest to there you need to go to do repairs). GPS receivers work by justing the difference in the timing of signals from satellites so you can find your location by trilateration. All of this is being ignored with the fixation on this one set of observations.

Angle would be different, so the arc it has to travel will be different, but they might have the numbers backward. (or wrong) Not sure where 4:10 comes from, but when it’s occulted as viewed from the sun, the sunlight is blocked by Jupiter. When occulted as viewed from earth, the sunlight may or may not be hitting it; that depends on where the sun is. We can’t see it because Jupiter is opaque. It will absorb or reflect light and we can’t see things behind it, like with any planet. Light reflected by Io doesn’t pass through it. I’m not sure why you think this is relevant, since the salient issue is that the distance does change. Throw the balls, but vary the distance. You notice the first ball arrives at 12:00 and the next one at 12:05, then 12:10, so you confirm the 5-minute interval. Then he moves, but launches them on the same schedule. The ball you expect at 1:00 shows up at 1:01. If you know the change in distance you can determine the speed of the ball. The ball took a minute to travel the additional distance

The number was incorrect, but I don’t understand your fixation with it, considering the relatively crude techniques involved, and the associated uncertainty in all of the values used in the calculations. I don’t get why this is a mystery. Io emerges, and it takes 11 minutes for the light to get to earth. But we can do (and have done) other experiments/observations to confirm this, and you’re ignoring them. No we wouldn’t. You can’t make an assertion and also use it as established fact. We see pulsars pulse at regular intervals. We get radio signals from satellites that don’t have these distortions.

I’m unsure how you can decouple the two concepts. If it takes time to travel a distance, that ‘s associated with a speed. I don’t think there’s any question that it disappears. Jupiter is opaque. As for real time, the simple answer is no, it takes time for a signal to reach an observer, and there’s 350 years of science that happened after Rømer that can be used to confirm that. What he discovered was that it takes light time to travel. The earth’s diameter was only part of that, and not directly measured. This is an assertion on your part, backed up by no evidence whatsoever. Which you won’t find, since the evidence that exists contradicts it. When you synchronize atomic clocks, you account for the signal travel time. You can then compare that to a clock that is moved from source to target and back, which confirms that there is a delay and the synchronization was done properly.

You wouldn’t but this doesn’t reflect what Rømer did, so I don’t see the point. The observation about a finite speed of light rested on when the occultation happened vs when it was predicted to happen, not on how long it took.

2009 is not cutting-edge. What has happened since then? Did the LHC provide evidence to support the conjecture? Here’s the blurb and the paper, which makes several predictions regarding LHC experiments. They discovered the Higgs after this was written, and the LHC has achieved 6.5 TeV per beam. Seems like we would have heard about the idea panning out. https://www.technologyreview.com/2009/05/14/31114/could-all-particles-be-mini-black-holes/ https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1667

So it’s not contemporary physics that thinks this, it’s a few physicists speculating about something to investigate, in articles that might very well follow Betteridge’s law.

For us, sure. But it’s true for anyone else, wherever they happen to be.

Actually Rømer inferred 22 minutes for the diameter. His number for the speed of light would have been low, if he had calculated it. But his calculation was not accurate for a number of reasons, and concluding anything about the actual value of c from this is erroneous. The thing is, it’s an inferred value, not a direct measurement. You can’t measure the timing of an occultation at closest and farthest separation, 6 months apart. For the second measurement, Jupiter would on the wrong side of the earth to be viewed at night, and even if earth, Jupiter and the sun were lined up for the first measurement, Jupiter would have moved in 6 months, and you would not have the alignment. Unfortunately most of his notes were destroyed in a fire, but it seems obvious that he made a number if measurements and extrapolated from that data to get these values, but they would depend on how well you knew the positions of both the earth and Jupiter. Even if the earth were fixed the timing would change because Jupiter moves, changing the distance and thus the time of light travel. But you can’t observe Jupiter unless it’s visible at night, away from the sun as viewed by earth. i.e. not at or near solar conjunction. So it seems obvious that he and others made multiple observations, and because they had some idea of the orbit, you could use Kepler’s laws to predict times of occultations, but these had some variation in them, for reasons that Rømer exposed. So if these data were averaged, any given occultation would likely happen earlier or later than predicted. It’s possible the expected times were based on observations made during opposition, since you could make more measurements. Hence observations made at other times would be later than predicted. By reconstructing the positions of the planets, he determined his 22 minute number, but as I said, there would be errors stemming from how well he knew Earth and Jupiter’s orbit, as well as the period of Io, and how well time of day could be determined.

The fact that his synchronized clock reads 10 minutes later tells you that. This isn’t an issue. While it would be in an actual experiment, we’re assuming that everyone agrees on where Io is when it disappears and reappears to the earth observer. The misconceptions lie elsewhere

No, my argument is that the events all happen ten minutes later. If you somehow get 20, you’re double-counting. If we have an observer (J) with a clock near Jupiter, synchronized to one on earth (ignoring the small relativistic effects) and J observes IO going behind at 12:00, the earth observer (E) sees it happen at 12:10. IO emerges at 1:00, according to J. E sees it emerge at 1:10. Both see the event last an hour, but E sees everything happening ten minutes later than J does.

You appear to be confusing “how long it takes” with “what time it happens” which is the same problem as the last time you posted on this topic. There’s also an issue with assuming a measurement made in the late 1600s would be as precise and accurate as modern ones

It would be hidden for one hour. It would be visible for 10 minutes while it is actually behind Jupiter, because it takes ten minutes for the light to get to us. It won’t show up for another hour, because after it emerges from behind Jupiter, it will take another ten minutes for the light to get to us. IOW it is not where it appears in the sky, owing to the light travel time. All events are delayed by ten minutes. Which is what Rømer discovered.

Moderator NotePosting to promote your pet theory in someone else’s thread is hijacking, and posting to promote your book is advertising. Both are against the rules.

Citation needed. What contemporary physics “considers” this? Dark matter is non-baryonic, so how can in be inside baryons?

I don’t know, but nuclei do deform. There’s the liquid drop model. An excited nucleus will oscillate like a blob of fluid. For a large nucleus, the two lobes get far enough apart that they don’t attract (the strong force has a limited range) but still repel owing to the Coulomb force, and you get fission.

Depends on what constitutes a problem. I don’t know about “required” but nuclei in particle accelerators are “pancaked” when observed from the lab frame. As far as not being able to exist, it’s sort of an ill-formed proposition. There is always some frame where it’s true, i.e. some fast moving particle exists, somewhere, and that can’t affect what happens in the object’s rest frame. All of the laws of physics are the same regardless of your (inertial) frame. Put another way, there is no object that inherently spherical, because the shape is relative.

There are images from Chandrayaan-2, but I’m not sure this particular one is real. It’s higher in resolution, and the craters are different. Also, the shadow seems different (more triangular in this one) but that could be sun angle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#/media/File%3AChandrayaan-2_Apollo.jpg

I have not. I pointed out an instance of cherry-picking and then added discussion. You can’t legitimately count these as unique events. The fact that you admit your model doesn’t work well with a certain subset of the data should be enough to show that using RMSE is not a good measure of its quality. It’s why there’s a joke about the statistician with their feet in a tub of ice water and head in an oven says, “On average, I feel great!” Nobody is required to go to external links, per rule 2.7 The conclusion from this is that the model is flawed, but you haven’t admitted that. You’re also neglecting to respond to the other issues raised.

But this is a science discussion site.

But you did the former, and not the latter, when you posted “Look at galaxy IC2574 (and many LSB galaxies like it). Here, the baryonic contribution is low even at small radii. The "missing mass" problem appears immediately near the center.” which is what I was referring to. “many like it” ≠ all IOW, you basically said your model is a great fit for a subset of the data, which is cherry-picking. “Yes, for some dense galaxies (like NGC0801), there is indeed an overshoot at the bulge. This suggests that the transition from "Newtonian" (center) to "Relational/Dark" (outskirts) dynamics might depend on the local potential depth (the "internal observer" effect I mentioned in the paper that Ill link below” You don’t explain why this “internal observer effect” only happens for some observations. Aren’t all of our observations subject to this? Seems to me you are just substituting a fudge factor so you can say there’s no dark matter. “Thus, the factor –√ 3 is the signature of a holistic observation of a closed system from the outside (Galactic Scale), while Newtonian dynamics represents the differential observation from the inside (Local Scale).” How can a constant factor arise in galaxies that could vary widely in their gravitational potentials? If it’s because of our own potential, where does that come from? I don’t see where our orbital parameters show up in your model. Can you show a detailed calculation of this?

Ran across this on bluesky. Prevalence of allergies is a fairly recent phenomenon, following the pathogen load reduction of improved hygiene and modern medicine. It’s a discussion of how to mitigate the situation. “Evidence suggests a combination of strategies, including natural childbirth, breast feeding, increased social exposure through sport, other outdoor activities, less time spent indoors, diet and appropriate antibiotic use, may help restore the microbiome and perhaps reduce risks of allergic disease. Preventive efforts must focus on early life. The term ‘hygiene hypothesis’ must be abandoned.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4966430/

That tends to happen when you cherry-pick data. But for galaxies who have little DM at small r, the orbits are just Newtonian, which suggests that your theory doesn’t predict such orbits properly. What happens when you calculate the orbit of the earth about the sun using the same method? And just a few days ago you said “I spent too much time addressing philosophical objections instead of focusing on the mathematical derivation. It won't happen again.” and here you are arguing philosophy. No matter. If the numbers disagree, and one argues that one is correct, the other must be wrong. You can’t claim otherwise.

This is just some sleight of hand, though. You used a measured value that depends on G and M.