swansont

You didn't present an hypothesis. You just ranted about some strange straw man concocted about the big bang. What you've presented here isn't an hypothesis, either. It's a hand-wave, a seed of an idea. What one discusses at 2AM after imbibing certain chemicals that temporarily alter the brain. In terms of science, 99% of it is missing - there's no math, there are no specific predictions that one could use to falsify the idea.

! Moderator Note So do we. Since your contribution here is science-free (and is a violation of rule 2.13), and we’re a science discussion site, this is closed.

Um, no. There’s nothing inherent in an electric motor that would make this true. Terrestrial EVs generally have more horsepower than ICE cars. More efficient, too. https://electricvehiclehub.com.au/information-centre/are-electric-cars-as-powerful-as-petrol-cars/

Come up with a mathematical model and show how it fits the data. As pzkpfw notes, you are criticizing a straw man of the big bang.

They used to, though. Figuring out what was in coal tar and figuring out uses for the compounds was big in the late 1800s. (there was a “Connections” episode on this, IIRC) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_tar It’s still considered water. Your mention of it suggested that a different isotope was a different compound, which is the topic of discussion. That there is a difference in some interactions is interesting but not what the article is discussing.

Different isotopes of an element don’t create different molecules. H2O is water, regardless of whether you have O-16, O-17 or O-18

You could calculate how much oxygen you need by looking at the combustion reaction. Or just use an electric vehicle.

There are lots of ways to combine three or more atoms when you have 100+ to choose from. A lot will not last very long or only exist under specific conditions, and some are difficult to synthesize because some other compound is energetically preferred

Nevertheless, it exists.

There is an antiviral treatment for COVID. nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, marketed as Paxlovid.

It’s a distribution that’s supposed to have a median of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, so scores above 160 are possible but rare. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

“Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick had a few choice words for the public on his way out the door of the Pentagon's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office” https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxjydq/former-pentagon-ufo-investigator-is-pissed-because-congress-believes-in-conspiracy-theories “As of the time of my departure, none, let me repeat, none of the conspiracy-minded ‘whistleblowers’ in the public eye had elected to come to AARO to provide their ‘evidence’ and statement for the record despite numerous invitations,” he said

Yes. If there isn’t enough energy then you can’t create new particles. Yes. Yes. Particles scatter all the time.

I’m not sure why they would accelerate away. There could be an electrostatic force, but this typically has a small energy compared to the interaction energy. e- and e+ for example (creation or annihilation) - the mass energy is around 1 MeV but the electrostatic PE is of order 10 eV Owing to the uncertainty principle(s) you don’t get to “look” at the interaction in arbitrarily fine detail of whatever variable (e.g. position, momentum) You look at the start and end of the interaction and apply conservation laws - momentum, energy, charge, angular momentum You can treat the acceleration of a free electron classically.

What would be a comparable situation? Cases I can think of where acceleration matters are where you’d treat the particle classically. In quantum systems you’d look at the energy of an interaction.

WalidKhan suspended for spamming

All of physics is a technicality. If you’re going to use a scenario, you need to represent it properly, so that everyone is discussing the same thing.

The twins are the same age at the start of the scenario. One is younger at the conclusion of the experiment. They never “reach” the age of the other.

It was not just one post; this was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back. Your previous responses in the thread were flippant. You answered yes to a question and when you were asked for a citation you simply posted a picture of a magic 8-ball showing ‘yes’ Despite your claim here, there were serious responses in the thread. Elsewhere you had posted a stock discussion in quantum theory. You’ve posted pictures in other threads that did not contribute to the discussion. I recall trying to give you feedback about this, which you rejected. We reached saturation with that behavior. You can learn from it, or not

That wasn’t your original assertion. “When you look at the Cube it contains a point to point line, a square and a Cube, could this be written 1m¹+1m²+1m³, would this equal 3m⁶ equalling 729m?” The equation is incorrect. Nonsensical, in fact. It is in no way the equivalent of saying a cube contains a line, area and volume.

Yes, that only accounts for a little bit of the difference. It’s likely all the factors mentioned contribute. Several factors of 2 or 3 rather than one big one.

Comparable, but also that’s by weight, so Na is ~ 2x more abundant by number.

It’s 2,000,000 ppb for Na and 110,000 ppb for K, which might account for a large part of this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

! Moderator Note Material for discussion needs to be posted

This thread is about the news article. If you want another conversation, open a new thread