swansont

Yes, but it’s not like this is a new phenomenon. It’s been true for a very long time. They dig in when you show them - the backfire effect. They need an emotional path to change.

They aren’t? Are any particles real? The wave function collapse is non-invariant... one reason that comes right to mind is "it's" observer dependent. The very act of observation influences the system so different observers might get different results... so the collapse can vary based on the observer's reference frame. Particles are real in a frame of reference only if they are observer dependent. How could we ever know? Posted just now If a particle’s eave function collapses the particle is in a well-defined state. e.g. an atom in the ground state. That atom can abosorb a photon of a certain energy, while an atom in a different state can’t. Whether or not the atom absorbs a photon can’t be observer dependent. Either it does, or it doesn’t. A particle that’s observer independent? What does that mean? In what way would an electron be observer dependent? What does this have to do with wave function collapse?

How do you mean not invariant? That it’s not an invariant, because it’s not a quantity? (is anyone arguing otherwise?) Or that it’s frame dependent? Which would be incorrect, since an event has to happen in all frames. They aren’t? Are any particles real?

Are you going to provide links to the case studies or not?

Not in science. You don’t get to only include the results that agree with your conjecture while ignoring the ones that don’t

I think that it’s present for non-rigid bodies. Deformation from work results in heating Dynamic tidal effects from the moon come from the fact that it revolves around the earth. Not from the rotation of the moon.

I’ve seen this phrasing before and it annoys me, since it sounds like it’s referencing a scientific principle rather than an allowable approximation. It’s just that the difference is so small it can be ignored. You’re releasing or absorbing energy on the scale of eV instead of MeV, and c^2 is of order GeV per amu. So it’s nanograms per mole. Don’t need to account for it. Mass isn’t a conserved quantity. Full stop.

exuczen banned as a sockpuppet of Bart, bart2, ravell

! Moderator Note Kind of an odd observation made after a handful of posts. Unless you’ve been here under another name

Prediction requires theory. Experiment can lead to formation of a theory, but is not itself predictive. If you want to call it omphaloskepsis that’s fine with me, but you set out framing this in scientific terms, so that would be a rather drastic course correction - an admission that you can’t make a scientific case here.

We’re looking for something a little more rigorous than analogies. Is there any predictive power to this framework?

So, nothing authoritative. Just some guy on a different discussion board, being partly wrong. And nothing for the second quote.

! Moderator Note Threads merged Deja vu all over again

! Moderator Note Threads merged. One per topic, please

A charged particle in a B field will move in a circular (or spiral) path. The force is perpendicular to the velocity (F = qv x B). No work.

He’s already made campaign promises based on it, and it’s not like he can stick to a script, so good luck avoiding all the hot-button issues.

! Moderator Note Advertising is not permitted. Link removed.

Thus far there is zero content that complies with the speculations rules regarding a new idea, so there’s nothing to stitch together

! Moderator Note You are free to ask questions about dark matter, but if you have no model to present, then please refrain from mentioning your “theory”

Field lines aren’t physically real, they are a convenient way of describing the value of the field, like elevation contour lines on a map. Interaction with field lines is just a way of looking at an equation the depends on E or B, or on a derivative, which is sometimes referred to as “cutting” a flux line. It’s conceptual only.

I think this is moot; this isn’t a lecture, it’s a discussion forum. I think it’s an unreasonable expectation. I don’t see where you’ve typed in all that many equations in these discussions. I wonder, if you had done so, if your typing skill would stand up to the same scrutiny and criticism you have offered up.

Much the same way you “fix” a pet

But if they have positive energy, when they annihilate you have energy where you had none before, which means energy is not conserved. It’s not what I require, it’s what the description of Hawking radiation requires. Not sure where this comes from We’re talking about the virtual pair, though, without other constraints. IIRC the magnitude of the gravitational PE is less than the mass energy in this situation, so one particle escaping has to result in a loss of energy from the BH. The coordinate system isn’t going to matter (it can’t; you can’t have something that happens in one frame be impossible in another) It’s not a weird, fake theory. This is a common description of Hawking radiation. https://www.sciencealert.com/hawking-radiation# http://www.physics.hmc.edu/student_projects/astro62/hawking_radiation/radiation.html

Do you have a model and/or evidence for this?

You learned that virtual particles have positive energy? What happens when the pair annihilates?