swansont

That’s average energy per particle. Since you have a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, this will mean some fraction of the particles will have much higher energy, and can undergo fusion. If you simply had two beams of protons with a few keV undergoing collisions, you wouldn’t get fusion.

You posted this topic. The text box has no label, but has icons across the top for text modification (bold, italics, etc.) and other actions (link, quote, etc)

The same as what? Your accusations are both vague and unsupported.

Yes, of course there is. Ice cores. “as the ice compacts over time, tiny bubbles of the atmosphere—including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane—press inside the ice” https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/climate-science/core-questions-an-introduction-to-ice-cores/ But how could there not be, considering that animals produce both CO2 and methane. Suggesting that these didn’t exist is not a serious proposal How much? Where is the energy stored that’s not converted to heat? I can only think of potential energy stored in the trees, and that number should be something you can estimate, and I suspect isn’t going to be all that much, relative to the total solar power that hits the earth.

! Moderator Note After further discussion, this is moved to speculations. The OP makes several claims of a factual/scientific nature, and needs to provide some sort of evidence in support of them, or a way to test their hypothesis.

Because you admit your view is only from a Christian perspective, and yet many gods from multiple religions exist. You aren’t considering them.

Baloney. The left in the US is more supportive of equal rights than the right. It’s the GOP that has acted against Muslims, not the left. The right is supportive only of Christianity. This alleged stance is because there has been bias in support of Christianity. When that bias is removed in the effort to provide equality, it feels like being against, but it’s not.

Very obtuse of you. Can’t tell if it’s deliberate, but… This is why people accuse you of trolling. The statement above, and this: You asked a question in the first post, and I answered it. By saying “I never said science can find God” you are implying that I suggested you did. It’s not a response made in good faith. You should be aware of your own statements, particularly ones made so recently.

You can’t seriously think CO2 and methane didn’t exist 2000 years ago. Even if there were no humans, i.e. no anthropogenic sources, greenhouse gases would exist Solar energy gets transformed to other forms regardless. The issue is how much gets re-radiated back into space, vs getting trapped as thermal energy. Your conjecture would greatly benefit from a mathematical analysis. Quantifying this idea would make it much easier to discuss.

So you have a bias in your analysis. No, science cannot find God. God does not lend themselves to such material discovery.

Stating what the science is, is not opinion or belief. This isn’t bullshitting while your English prof gets you stoned

Ignorance of the evidence is mot the same as nonexistence Not sure how you arrive at this conclusion, but since it’s based on not understanding the model, I think that’s moot

If that’s your takeaway, you have some reading comprehension issues to address

This deflection is not from the uncertainty principle, and isn’t the reason for interference. Just a big non-sequitur

No, actually, you don’t have to. It’s an analogy, and if you change it, it’s not correct anymore. Nature is under no obligation to behave the way that you want it to.

It wasn’t like either. A common 2D analogy is like the surface of a ballon expanding. Draw some dots on it, and inflate it. All dots move away from all the other dots. There is no center.

This came up in another thread earlier this year. You can force the lease to renew; in Windows you go to the command prompt and type ipconfig /renew, though it’d possible you are assigned the same address.

The current, best theory is that there is no center.

Investigation has shown a problem with the boat - the priors were installed incorrectly.

No, since single-photon (or electron) experiments have shown interference. Indeed. The conclusion is that the particle interferes with itself

! Moderator Note Please consult a mental health professional. We can’t help, and are not getting involved

Very clever of the orcas, making it look weather-related

The energy states above the ground state have a finite width owing to their lifetime (energy and time being conjugate variables). But lifetime is not part of the solution, and the energies are single-valued. So while other non-commuting variables have the uncertainty built in, the energy-time pairing do not.

Not necessarily. The solution to the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom gives the energy eigenstates, but does not give the width of the energy states.

But it’s not the Pedant forum; most understand what’s meant by renewable energy.