swansont

Of course it would work on Mars. The moon doesn't rotate every 24 hours — that's us rotating "underneath" it. It completes a rotation once per revolution, every 27.3 days. That's purely an issue of the posts being in a font size larger than normal, which is tantamount to shouting and while SLIGHTLY LESS ANNOYING THAN ALLCAPS, is still considered rude by many. Perhaps it just annoys me more than others. Obelix has been asked to not engage in such behavior. However, it had nothing to do with the content.

Don't hide. The beta energy spectrum should be quantized if there is no neutrino. You have provided no evidence that this could be true. The evidence we have says that the spins are not "assorted" and that the electron has no structure.

I had no idea the flow assumptions failed for inverted flight — every time this had come up before, that part was never mentioned. Learned something new!

You have two spin-1/2 particles merging to form another spin-1/2 particle. Where does the lost angular momentum go? Angular momentum, BTW, is one way the Bohr model fails. ——————— Dots, and any other speculative framework, are off-limits outside of their own thread. You have been warned about this before, and will not be warned again.

What?

Electrons are distinguishable from their antiparticles, since they are charged.

Again, "easier/harder to explain" should not be construed with right/wrong. Does conservation of energy fail with inverted flight? If not, Bernoulli's principle must hold, even if it not convenient to apply it and use it as an explanation.

What's the point of information transfer if the particles are in the same place? The advantage of using entanglement is in the fidelity. If you tried to use spin entanglement and measure classically, you have a 50% chance of getting the wrong answer. Using quantum teleportation, the fidelity can reach 100% http://www.its.caltech.edu/~qoptics/teleport.html

"Anybody interested in my work" has been merged into this thread. Discussion of it should take place here.

"Easier to understand" is not the same thing as right vs wrong Bernoulli is a statement of conservation of energy. Unless one is going to propose that energy isn't conserved, Bernoulli is just fine. Newton is a statement of conservation of momentum. Likewise, this is fine as well. In my observation, it usually boils down to which example one gives — there are situations where it's easier to see Bernoulli (the horizontally oriented asymmetric wing that's flat on the bottom) and others where it's easier to see Newton (symmetric wing at an angle).

Yes, it's possible. In addition to the balloon itself, the air inside is at a pressure greater than atmosphere, meaning the balloon has a net weight after accounting for buoyancy. This is why a balloon falls to the floor when you release it. But it would take a lot of balloons.

You can't send information faster than light using entangled particles. What is it you want to know?

It depends on its energy. The longest time approaches infinity.

IOW there is nothing to distinguish this from saying, "It's magic," or from the currently accepted physics. How would one, in principle, falsify the dot-wave hypothesis? Calling people idiots if they don't just accept what you are shoveling probably isn't the best course of action.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/308/1 http://thayer.dartmouth.edu/~Simon_G_Shepherd/research/Shielding/index.html

What is GMST?

"I'm right, everyone else is stupid" isn't much of an argument. ——— Before you go forward with any of this discussion, you need to establish the validity of the dot-wave hypothesis. Basing further argument on speculation is not going to be at all productive, so I'm closing this down. Don't start any more threads based on dot-wave, and answer the questions in existing threads.

The centripetal force is the force directed toward the center of the circle However, I think you have to revisit the approach to the problem. I've looked at it a little more carefully; the net force is not zero, which changes how you have to look at the free-body diagram, and the normal force is not merely a component of the weight. If you look at the forces present in the coordinate system where gravity is in the -y direction, you'll see that the y component of the normal force is greater than the weight. (the car is, in effect, "pressed down" to the track by going fast, since the track has to push it in a circle. Consider the case where the track is inclined at 90º to see an extreme example of this)

So they could disrupt the voting system. People vote for judges, sheriffs and district attorneys. The integrity of that process is important.

X-rays are ionizing radiation. You'll want something with a low atomic density and low atomic number to minimize the number of potential targets.

Discussion boards have a word for people who do that: troll Don't be a troll. Then it's not science. Be advised that on this board discussion of alternative approaches to science must still be done within the framework of science. You need to address questions and present evidence for claims.

Evidence? Interesting. Mine has not ended, nor (I suspect) has it for most of the other people here.

First link: you misread it. "The virtual particle didn't "transmit" any information that I didn't have already; it is useless as a means of faster-than-light communication." That translates as: doesn't violate causality. Second Link: "First off a disclaimer: I'm not a particle physicist, and although I have a basic understanding of Quantum Field Theory, I can by no means claim to be an expert on virtual particles" The "violation" he then quotes is the HUP.

Build one, then we can talk.

22422 N is the force in the x direction of your coordinate system. That's fine. What direction is the centripetal force in your coordinate system?