swansont

We weren't addressing the same issue, so I don't know why you would raise this question. KE = 1/2 |PE| fails to be generally true for any noncircular orbit, even one where there has been no impulse.

You post this, and yet the posts before it in the original thread was not a case of somebody simply asking a question. It was someone making an assertion about the state of scientific inquiry. If you're going to complain about how the "moderators" (why the scare quotes?) and long-term members should take it easier on people asking questions, maybe you could find the examples of it actually happening. Also, since the implication was that we are being rough on newcomers, who might not know their way around the place, maybe the example should be a newcomer and not someone with >300 posts. Which is what happens., But if they're wrong, we should tell them so. If they are not actually being scientific, we should tell them so. So this feedback is subtle, but also an example of being self-righteous pricks? Sorry, I'm not seeing it. You seem to be advocating that we shouldn't tell people that they are wrong. I don't see how that is ultimately helpful. All it does is prevent some bruising of apparently fragile egos, but doesn't address the more important issue of them being wrong. Science is not an endeavor where participation trophies count for much. Being wrong and then learning why you were wrong to then be right is part of the process. All I can do is conclude you really haven't paid much attention to all the threads where people are asking questions and getting a lot of very patient feedback and information from our members. I can find two examples of your posts being hidden and in both cases you were (IMO) being a condescending jerk. Stones and glass houses and all that.

! Moderator Note OT commentary has been split http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93681-split-from-can-the-laws-of-physics-be-wrong/

It would be a mistake to equate a non-response to a specific topic I was never discussing as agreement. (The fallacy of argument from silence). My sole discussion point has been your erroneous claim that v<<c means that there must be a nonrelativistic explanation for a result. I provided examples of this not being true.

Where did I insist on that? What I did say was

No, because for any orbit with e ≠ 1, the KE = 1/2|PE| relationship does not generally hold at any instant. It does not require a change in eccentricity.

That's not what they are being asked to do, though. They are being asked to create (and in any event would be required to create) a tool that could extract the info from any of their phones. The US government has another dozen cases where they want devices unlocked after this one, and what's to keep another country from compelling Apple to turn over the code to them, where there isn't even a charade of pretending a judge might be involved in granting the use of the code. Going to China? Hand over your phone at customs. The UK has made noises about wanting a back door for mobile devices, so I would imagine they would demand it, too. This has implications for corporate espionage as well as personal privacy.

It's still corruption, but not in the same sense as was being used in the bit that started this tangent.

While I disagree with the policy, the legal bit has been ruled to be not bribery.

Not that I'm aware of, for GR, other than the part that we call SR.

You only need invoke GR in situations where Newtonian gravity fails to adequately explain the behavior.

That sounds to me like an issue for the caucus organizers, not the candidate. Much like how the GOP Iowa caucus didn't ask for ID, despite that being a hot-button issue for them, and same-day registration was allowed. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/31/10-questions-answered-iowa-caucuses/79605510/ How much coverage has Trump been getting? Also: no links to any stories that might corroborate the above How is any of this indicative of becoming a third-world country?

It won't be stepwise, because Work + Energy will be continually adding up properly, but as long as work is being done, and/or you aren't in a circular orbit, you can't say that the KE = 1/2|PE| relationship holds at any instant.

Oh, please. How about we stick to other areas where we have a hope of presenting verifiable data, rather than get mired in this kind of conspiratorial Godwinesque BS?

Asking questions is not a problem. The issue that comes up is when someone decides to lecture based on their lack of understanding.

You can describe any acceleration with curved spacetime.

So the question is whether one could have a tensor that models an arbitrary acceleration (i.e. a configuration that gives the same acceleration as an energy/momentum distribution would). e.g. there's a tensor that would give you the result of constant gravitational acceleration. But since we can't distinguish this from some other acceleration, the curvature would be exactly the same, and would describe the same motion. There's nothing I can see that would invalidate this.

poor unstable governments high rate of population growth high rate of illiteracy high rate of disease. The US is not necessarily at the top of lists where these attributes are at the bottom, and we can certainly do better, but I'd have to say "no" to all of the above. The US is one of the wealthiest nations. The travesty IMO is that there is such wealth disparity. As a country we are literate and have decent access to health care (much better in the last few years). Growth is not high, net of immigration. (edit: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:USA:RUS:CAN&hl=en&dl=en http://www.census.gov/popclock/ The above says our growth is less than 1% and has been for more than a decade, and roughly half of our increase is from immigration) Lead in the water in Flint, black sludge in Texas and flammable water in some areas where fracking is happening are symptoms of governments putting the people as a lower priority than money/business, but this is still anecdotal. Worldwide, 1/10 of the people lack access to safe water. That would be over 30 million people in the US just to be average. Even though our number should be zero, "less than one percent of non-native American households have no access to safe water and/or wastewater disposal" http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/513841/outrage%3A_people_in_the_us_still_lack_access_to_clean_water

Since acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable, I would guess that one can model any arbitrary acceleration as curved spacetime. There's the notion that the curvature tells mass how to move. It would be nice if one of our members who is well-versed in GR can confirm that, though. Spacetime is not a physical object that physically deforms, like pliers+a vice+effort will bend some sheet metal. It's a coordinate system we use to describe what's going on. So it's not so much that gravity distorts spacetime as that a distorted spacetime is how we describe gravity. The former description is often used, but it tends to reify the geometry, which IMO is a mistake.

Acceleration is not distinct from gravity, though. They are indistinguishable. I think you have over-simplified the lesson; the usual claim is that SR can't handle acceleration, which is false. But that's not to say that SR can handle any acceleration (or at least do so gracefully) or that it will predict all effects from it.

Where was I shown to be wrong?

It's not luck. It the result of effort and practice.

! Moderator Note Otherwise known as thread hijacking. Don't do this; start a new thread instead.

That's disappointing on several levels. Citations for claims should be links, preferably to peer-reviewed material, not a suggestion to "go on utube". But I searched anyway. Tests did not show that it generates thrust from the effect (the null test showed more thrust). Shawyer's work is crap.

With thrust (or drag) you have to look at the force acting on the object. That will tell you its motion. There is no general answer, because the direction and amount of the additional force matters. I find it by looking at the equations.