Bufofrog

Blender is a free open source drawing and animation software. It is quite good, the learning curve is a bit steep but there is a whole community that uses it and lots of helpful tutorials.

I can do all of those things. I assume everyone can. The reason you cannot get a video of your shaky eyes is because the movement is to small, it just seems like a lot from the inside. Have friend look at your eyes when you do that and he will confirm your eyes are vibrating.

I believe the short answer is no. However, I suppose you could call a steel a chemical compound and the steel could be magnetized but I assume that is not what you are talking about. I also suppose you could call a wet cell battery a chemical compound that can produce an electric charge but again I assume this is not what you are talking about. A fuel cell is another chemical way to produce a current. Finally, if you put salt into water you have a plethora of electrically charged ions that make the liquid very conductive but the overall charge of the solution is neutral. Maybe if you went a bit more into depth as to what you are looking for I could better answer your question.

This seems rather confusing to me. You said the gravitational constant is corrected by a=0.01:0.001? Uh, 0.01:0.001 is not a number... Are you saying the corrections is between 0.01 and 0.001? So what is the correction factor? Maybe ':' is some operator I am not aware of. Why is 'a' showing up in the equation for gravitational potential? Did you actually mean 'a' is a correction to gravitational potential?

How about the light is not screwed on all the way and slight movements can either make the light bulb connect or disconnect. Of course the ghost theory is still a possibility...

That actually makes some sense to me. The difficulty is that I can't help but try to visualize this stuff as it relates to my everyday experience which does not work. Thanks for the insight and help Strange, I have to go take a couple of aspirins now...

I have a question that is puzzling me. I assume my problem is due to only seeing the 'pop science' explanation of Hawking radiation, anyway.... If there is pair production near the event horizon and 1 particle falls into the BH and the other escapes, how would that decrease the mass of the BH? Didn't a particle enter the BH and increase it's mass?

I know this is not the only forum that you 2 go 'at it', and it just gets old really fast. I do read your posts unless you 2 are arguing and then I ignore the whole page. It certainly appears that you are not a fan of GR, in that you are looking for the next step in our understanding of gravity. You also seem 'to this layman' to be quite knowledgeable. So why don't you just ignore Beecee and make your points? Just my humble opinion.

Why don't you guys PM each other instead of posting your incessant arguing, it is boring.

Metaphysics? You can disprove a hypothesis with experimentation, but you can't prove a hypothesis with experimentation. An experiment can certainly support a hypothesis, but it cannot prove it. This is not new age metaphysics, it just logic and regular old normal physics.

Well then that sort of dooms your whole idea, doesn't it? When shaving this morning I am fairly certain the person looking at me from the mirror was my reflection. Hypothesis falsified. I guess it is back to the 'drawing board'!

I think it is very problematic to think of reflection in this way, it makes much more sense to look at a light as a wave and the reflection of that wave. In the scenario that you presented, if the photon is absorbed by an electron and then re-emitted, there is no reason that the photon would have a trajectory that was 180 degrees different than the incoming photon. In other words the emitted photon can go in any direction. Based on your scenario of photon absorption and remittance there would not even be a reflection.

I did not read it, but if you think it is a good article then based on you past history it is a good bet that it is absurd, or it is a good article and you misunderstood it.

I'll bet Trump built it, right? This is getting (been) freaking absurd. Reported as inane.

Yes I noticed that. Very quick on the draw...