Leaderboard

I guess that is your problem in a nut shell. This site is not about winning anything, this site is about understanding and learning about science. Your conjectures have been refuted and if refusing to acknowledge that means you 'won', then I guess all I can say is congratulations.

I’m afraid I’m getting that same impression, so I don’t feel it is worth my while to volunteer any more of my time in this thread. Good luck.

Yes. It could raise the temperature of the focused spot up to about 6000 degrees C.

Yep. You can also pre-cut the line with a razor knife, or make two passes with the saw, first one at a depth of about 1/16". Took me a while to figure this one out, but if you have a 'good' side to the wood you are cutting you should have 'good' side up on a table saw, and 'good' side down when using a circular saw. That way the teeth enter the good side on their way to the inside of the piece. Similar to the way a nail will punch a neat hole on its way in but may cause splintering as it exits.

Masking tape on the cut line, and a finer toothed blade? Have had pretty good results with that.

Also depends on what you mean by "down to size". If the door is already up and simply sticking or not quite fitting right, you can fix the problem with a plane. If the door has a wood veneer on it you also run the risk of splintering the edges when you cut it. If that is the case there are some suggestion I can make on avoiding that issue.

Should our politicians concern be to just get reelected? After all they will only get to be reelected if enough voters approve of what they have done in office. Is it not good enough for them to just fulfil that commitment,(to be sufficiently popular)? Do they have to be "better" than the people who voted them in or it it their highest duty to represent them warts and all?(men of the people or the vanguard of the people?)

I think we're well past feeding time...

You don't know, is kinda the point...

No you are not wrong Your 'thinking' is so far out of line with any section of this forum that the old scientific statement You are not even wrong applies.

Im still hoping for some relevant answer about about particle decay where your claims are contradicted by scientific observations.

Is that entirely right? Surely even a single solution to Schrödinger's equation is still a "monochromatic" wave function, describing in effect a probability density over space, rather than a specific location at which the QM entity might be detected. In which case, "collapse" represents detection (or interaction) at a specific location, with a likelihood predicted statistically by the (single) solution (wave function).

No, you need to present a topic for discussion here, not require readers to click on links to take them elsewhere - and maybe pick up malware in the process. According to my limited understanding of QED, particles are modelled as disturbances in fields. Does your hypothesis relate to how these disturbances arise?

My approach would be to use a circular saw against a straight edge, or (even better) a track saw if you have one. Trying to manage a piece that large on a table saw is doable, but more dangerous and more difficult to do well. As you may know, lots of doors these days are hollow core, so be thoughtful about what kind of edge you’ll be left with if removing too much material. On those, only the perimeter areas are solid wood. Not really an issue though if it’s solid wood throughout.

As it is impossible to entangle six hunderd billion trillion molecules ( in one mole ) with the same wavefunction, self interaction must also be considered in the collapse, not just the surroundings.

I’m beginning to see where it is that you’re stuck, I think. You see, the form of the geodesics themselves is already completely determined by the geometry of the underlying spacetime, which has nothing to do with velocities. There are really infinitely many geodesics in any spacetime - this is called its ‘geodesic structure’. So, in order to find the correct geodesic for a given particular situation, you need to specify initial and boundary conditions for the problem. And that’s where velocity comes in - it serves as an initial condition to select the correct geodesic out of all possible ones. It doesn’t actually determine what that geodesic looks like - only the geometry of spacetime does that, and that follows from the presence of sources of energy-momentum. In practice, you start by solving the Einstein equations - you input what and where sources of gravity are, and out comes a description of the geometry of spacetime. For our purposes here you can think of that description as a big bundle of free-fall geodesics - all possible ones for all possible cases, and what each of them looks like is already determined in that description. So, as a second step you need to find and select that one geodesic out of that big bundle that applies to your problem at hand; so you need selection criteria. These are your boundary conditions - initial velocity being one of them. But it isn’t a case of velocity determining the geodesic structure of spacetime - it simply helps you find “your” geodesic in an infinite pile of possible ones. The pile itself depends only on the distribution of energy-momentum. Note that velocity alone isn’t enough though, you need at least one more boundary condition. It doesn’t. It simply tells you which geodesic is followed, the ‘shape’ of which is already determined by the geometry of spacetime. See above. Gravity is defined as being geodesic deviation, in GR. It doesn’t really, it presents only one specific aspect of gravity. And it isn’t a model either, it’s just an analogy. The rubber sheet visualisation is what is called an ‘embedding diagram’ - the form that’s usually depicted uses Schwarzschild coordinates, and plots changes in the radial coordinate against changes in proper distance. That’s all - it shows just this one relationship. It doesn’t depict the time coordinate, nor the angular coordinates - so you can’t see the tidal components of gravity (or any other gravitational phenomena) in that plot. Generally it also only shows the region outside the central body, and ignores the interior part. You can deduce some of these things from what you see - but that’s only because you are dealing with the simplest of all geometries, Schwarzschild spacetime, which is highly symmetric. For something even slightly more complicated, such as Kerr spacetime, this kind of visualisation fails badly, since you can’t easily deduce any of the other aspects, such as frame dragging. Are you actually aware that in everything you’ve said so far you are tacitly assuming a very specific spacetime geometry, being Schwarzschild? It’s the simplest of all solutions to the Einstein equations - it’s spherically symmetric, static, stationary, asymptotically flat, and depends only on the mass of the central body. This solution is great for academic purposes, since it’s pretty simple and works well as an approximation. But actually, really world gravity is vastly more complicated - it may involve angular momentum, gravitational radiation, sometimes electric charges, non-linear self-interactions, and a whole host of other things. If you account for these, the geometry of spacetime very quickly becomes vastly more complex. Please don’t think that what you find in Schwarzschild is all there is to gravity. That’s not the case at all.

Probably put there by the same aliens who placed the Tycho Magnetic Anomaly One ( TMA-1 or Tycho Monolith ) on the Moon, that was discovered by the Odissey mission in 2001, led by A C Clarke.

Apart from the fact it was 'faked ' 5 more times.

The acceleration is speeding up. "Does cosmic expansion ever end?" It doesn't look like it will ever end (but who is to say for sure?).

Both sides? No, I don’t think so. There aren’t valid points for the conspiracy, only misinformed ones. They have been debunked countless times, including the “flag waving” nonsense https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-debunked What is your evidence that the flag was waving back and forth, anyway? What reasoning leads you to think things don’t move because you have a vacuum, and also, are you looking at a still image or a video? The only video I’ve seen is while they are setting it up, and shaking the whole apparatus. The special kind of idiocy of thinking only wind would cause the flag to wave when people are shaking it is why moon landing conspiracies aren’t taken seriously. (you can do an experiment in a windless environment to see this, but that’s apparently too high of a hurdle for conspiracy fetishists) Your post is the worst aspect of this kind of argument - not only are you invoking a conspiracy, you haven’t even presented any evidence, and somehow expect the pro and con points to be treated on equal footing. We discuss science here, and demand some level of rigor in doing so.

Less odd than you believing that you have won despite not one refutation of my understandings coming from your side. How can I be overlooking anything that says I'm wrong. Only if arrogance wins arguments are my adversaries way out in front. I'm prepared to accept I'm wrong despite that being a devastating outcome personally if it were to happen. It's still more important that the truth is presented though. And I sure would not like to mislead anyone anyhow. My point is that I'd never set out to debate how it is that gravity works, but as that was the direction this took, and I believe I'm being positive, then it's a 'God Effect' that has let me survive this attack. And one that's from those who know a lot more about these things than myself. That is if I'd lost this I'd be so demoralized that my mission would end. My 'faith' would have been devastated.

Okay. If that's your 'out'. I mean picking on my poor choice of words means a lot? I don't get beaten much but that's not because of any skill on my part but instead that I'm on what I believe is a positive (good) path and that does help (even if I'm set to lose in the end). Thanks for 'volunteering'.