swansont

Your work is copyrighted as soon as it is put down in "fixed form;" in this case, writing and/or drawing. You can register the copyright, which allows some additional legal options, e.g. suing for statutory damages. The copyright only protects the specific thing you have created, not the idea underlying it.

The loudspeaker

The latent heat value depends on temperature. Not a constant.

No such thing as an unbound quark. AFAIK this is a reason why the masses are not well-known, as compared to the masses of other particles.

No, not really. No QM here. Philosophical posts go in speculations.

Let's say I have a mole of water. The vapor pressure is small even at room temperature (~3.1% of atmosphere at 25 ºC, to use your number). I will have to evacuate a certain volume in order to allow the water to boil and fill that space, and it will stop when the pressure reaches the vapor pressure. An ideal gas at room at 1 ATM takes up 22.4L, but as the vapor pressure of water is smaller, we need about 32 times that volume. The work I have to do to create this volume is PV, working against the 1 ATM I have, or about 72,400 J of energy. (101J/L * 22.4 *32) 1 mole of water is 18g, and that will take 18(75+540) = 11070 cal = 46,000 J to boil So drawing a vacuum takes more energy in this example. Another (perhaps simpler) way of answering the question qualitatively is this: if drawing a vacuum did take less energy, could you build an engine to do net work with that system? If the answer is yes, you have perpetual motion, and that would disprove the notion by contradiction. (draw a vacuum, let the water boil, reintroduce air, let the vapor condense — does that conserve energy?)

You've only underscored iNow's point. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. You only looked in this world, and since the systems are orthogonal, it's not surprising that you found nothing. The interpretation predicts you will find nothing.

It's not just the math ability, though. It's the exposure to doing some physics problems using calculus, which form a foundation for the modern physics. You can probably do it, but there may be points where a derivation or discussion of a concept starts at a point that was not covered by the algebra-based physics, but was covered by the calculus-based class. i.e. you may have to do some extra physics studying to catch up. It's not just knowing the math.

I answered it in post #3. The system, as a whole, loses the mass. The mass of individual particles is known for an unbound state only — once you combine them, you can't tell what their individual masses are.

How, exactly, can you do that? They are orthogonal systems.

How do you show that we don't have them? They are purported to be orthogonal.

No, energy and matter are not the same thing. Mass and matter are not the same thing. Mass and energy are properties matter can have. Energy and mass are interchangeable.

Please refer to the links in Moontanman's post; the context here is the quantum-mechanical vacuum/zero-point energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment

Yeah, probably. And the quality of news probably correlates inversely with this. The big differences is that they pretend that they don't (and sometimes people do get into trouble for doing so), and The Daily Show doesn't operate under the pretense that they aren't doing this. On the contrary, they appear to be quite proud of it.

A hydrogen atom is an electron bound to a proton. The mass of a free electron + free proton is greater than the mass of a hydrogen atom, by about 0.00055 atomic mass units

TDS makes stuff up. True, they make it up as part of satire, and tell you (indirectly) that they are going to make stuff up. And it's pretty easy to tell the fact from the fiction. But any news they report is a byproduct — it's necessary to do that in order to lampoon the hypocrisy, lies and idiocy, which is their true purpose. Because it's so easy to filter out the satire, they are (IMO) a decent news source, because they un-spin what they report on. But because they make stuff up, and do not attempt to be comprehensive, they are not a news program.

And debating these theories again, AFTER THE PREVIOUS THREADS WERE LOCKED, is unacceptable. You were warned last time not to do this

You were warned not to reopen this topic.

If you know the lattice structure of the substance, you can find the spacing from the density — you know how much volume a mole of atoms takes up. The size of the atom isn't really a well-formed concept in this context, because atoms are not hard spheres like marbles; if you have a covalent bond you are sharing electrons, so in that regard you'd have to say the atom's size is half of the bond length, but that will be different than of you had an unboundl atom.

The individual particles' masses are always given in an unbound state. Once they form a bound system, you can't really talk about the individual masses. The system gains or loses mass. In the case of e.g. a hydrogen atom, it loses the mass equivalent of 13.6 eV when a proton combines with an electron, and it drops into the ground state.

No, I do not think you were being sarcastic.

I'm guessing it's because you spoke of vacuum cleaners, meaning that if you were serious you didn't come close to understanding the question. One might wonder why you would choose to attempt an answer under that circumstance. But I could be wrong about this.

What is to keep me from praying for (or against) everyone in the world, skewing the results of any double blind test?

That's what you get for sleeping late.