exchemist

You can think what you like, of course. Normally when I make a scientific error, people here will jump in and correct me, just as I and others have done with you. That's how we improve one another's knowledge. If and when you decide to let us know what you are doing on this forum, I may take a further interest. For now, I'll leave you, while I nip out and buy some popcorn, just in case. 😀

How about you revealing your agenda, instead of asking tiresome questions?

Yeah I thought apples and oranges was getting a bit hackneyed, and that sink plungers would also obviate the tiresome rejoinder that both are at least types of fruit. 😁

That deserves some sort of prize!

Temperature of domestic fridge, in C deg / number of digits on one hand = 1.

Hard to say but eggs most likely. There is some protein in eggshells. Also if the shells are brown, there is a protoporphyrin pigment present, which may perhaps generate a yellow colour.

Down some crank rabbit hole, by the look of it.😄 But as you are having trouble with fairly simple concepts, I am not expecting a particularly sophisticated form of crankery. Nevertheless, you can stop being coy and reveal your agenda now, Ta-Daa!

No need to be sarky😀. Look, there have been half a dozen posts explaining why your equation is not valid, yet it is clear from your response that you have not taken in what was being said. So I've just been trying to explain it to you again, as clearly as I can. G is the proportionality constant relating the force of gravity to the mass of the two objects concerned and the distance between them. It is observed that the force is proportional to the size of both masses, i.e. F is proportional to m x M and that it is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them , i.e. F is proportional to 1/r². Putting the two observations together F is proportional to mM/r². G is the scaling factor that tells you how much F you get for given values of m, M and r. So the whole expression is F=GmM/r². This was worked out by Isaac Newton and is known as Newton's Law of Gravitation. The dimensions of G are L³/MT², so in the SI system the units are m³/kg-sec². This funny collection of units is the result of relating force, which has dimensions of ML/T² (per F=ma), to the expression on the right which, apart from G, has dimensions of M²/L². So we have L³/MT² x M²/L², which after simplifying by cancelling powers top and bottom as appropriate gives us ML/T², which is what we want. Only wrong ones, like yours. If a formula giving the ratio of two physical quantities has a result that depends on the units chosen, then it must be dimensionally incorrect and tells you nothing about the world. SI is used in science because it is universal and simple to use.

No. Your equation makes no sense, because you are trying to divide apples by sink plungers. G and g are different sorts of quantity. As has been pointed out, if you were to use different units the numerical relationship you have found would not arise. That means there is no significance in it. What you are doing is like noting the approx height of a man is 6ft and there are 6 sides to dice. Coincidence! Whereas if you work in metres, the height of a man is a bit less than 2metres and the coincidence disappears.

What do you think would be the consequences for the relationship with Europe if it did? Can Europe afford to cut off China?

Nobody can know. But if China starts supplying weapons to Russia then it could snowball, certainly. Very important that the US finds a way to make it not worth China's while to try that.

My hovercraft is full of eels.

No, chirality refers to entities that cannot be superimposed on their mirror image. For example your right hand is a mirror image of your left and there is no way you can superimpose your right hand onto your left hand. The same is true of right hand and left hand helices. Spin polarisation is simply the (partial) alignment of the angular momentum vector with some external influence, e.g. a magnetic field. Chirality does not feature in that, since particles can and do flip from one orientation to another. If it were a matter of chirality, that would be impossible. Polarity refers to an asymmetrical distribution of a property giving rise to opposite "poles", in physics usually either electric or magnetic, as in a magnetic or electric dipole, or higher multipoles.

Polarity and polarisation are not the same, and neither is the same as chirality.

Maybe you can tell us how it is that somebody called Gareth Meredith wrote the paper at this link: https://www.academia.edu/24475326/The_Larmor_Phenomenon_around_Quasars_as_an_Extension_to_Hawking_Radiation From your comments on the other thread, I'm not to call you Gareth, apparently. 😁

Of course: cook it one day, leave it to cool overnight and reheat and eat the second day. Or cook and freeze in batches for later use. (I disagree about cottage pie though. I think it dries up too much and the mashed potato goes sludgy.)

Chirality is not the same as polarity at all. You have no idea what you are talking about, Reiku. You may be confusing it with polarization, viz. the way chiral systems can rotate the plane of plane-polarized light. But if you knew some physics you would not confuse the two.

No, Gareth, that's not right. Direction of spin determines the orientation of magnetic moment. It tells you nothing about any electric dipole. And compatibility of what with what?

That is a meaningless sentence, Gareth. Compatibility of what with what? And what does it mean to talk of spin being distributed as an observable? Spin is quantised: with an electron you can only measure one value (or two projections of that value in an external field, if one is present. You can't measure bits of spin here and there.

Yes maybe that's the best way to look at it.

OK that's what I thought. That seems to suggest there is no experiment one could ever devise that would be evidence of any property of these virtual particles. In that respect they are unlike, say, the Higgs boson, whose existence was predicted and then evidence was found.

I'm not sure what you man by no input or output. If you mean they have, even in principle, no measurable properties, then that seems to make my point. No measurable properties, even in principle => unreal, surely?

Evidence of them does appear in measurements, though. Almost all non-trivial observations in science are to some extent indirect. Even elusive things like neutrinos can be shown to be real by patient enough observation. But there is no known observation that can show the presence of a virtual particle, whether directly or indirectly. What experiment could be devised that could show whether virtual particles did or did not exist? I don't think anybody has ever tried to do that, and that's because physicists know it would be a futile exercise.

lectrons-spin-in-quantum-physics-after-all-heres-why/am And the electron has been observed to have a spherical charge distribution. This is at odds with the classical model divergence problem because it simultaneously assumed the charge was pointlike. https://www.sci.news/physics/spherical-electrons-06518.html I'll even demonstrate the mathematics of this singularity of the electron if anyone wishes. It's quite simple. And yet from simple assumptions came erroneous ideas that are no longer holding up, like they used to. If you set all constants to zero your expression also becomes zero.

I'm following this discussion as far as I can. There is an article by Strassler here that seems to me to say virtual particles are qualitatively different from real ones: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/. and perhaps should never have been given a label containing the word "particle".