swansont

A stationary or uniformly moving mass doesn’t generate gravitational waves. Certain accelerations do, but in the case of the sun they would be exceedingly small.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50868-what-are-the-post-count-ranks/ Posts in certain sections don’t count toward this, and I’m not entirely certain the latest forum iterations update the titles

Let’s not add the danger of running an electric fan in a closed room in South Korea to this.

! Moderator Note As I recall, I was rebutting your ludicrous assertion that kinetic energy is a conserved quantity. Momentum and energy are different concepts and are used in different circumstances. As studiot’s example shows, there are situations where conservation of momentum does not help you in arriving at an answer. There are kinematic example where using momentum is the wrong approach, too (probably ones involving circular motion, or a force acting through a distance) But the thing is, you’re not really offering an alternative; your insistence on new terminology and formatting make it hard to follow your tortured presentation, and I don’t recall you having actually solved any problems. Your dissatisfaction with energy is yours. That’s fine, as long as that’s as far as it goes. But it’s not shared by the vast majority of people doing physics, and not liking a concept doesn’t make it wrong. You’re just ranting, and have to misrepresent physics to make your point. This might not be deliberate, you give off strong indications of simply not understanding, but you show no indication that you want to learn anything. Rule 2.12 prohibits “advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic” because such arguments are not in good faith. Which is why this is being locked. Don’t start any new threads along these lines. Enough is enough.

Would they all end up at the same place means 100%, and if a civilization doesn’t have fire (or whatever technology you choose) after 50,000 years, they haven’t ended up at the same place as we are today. We know physics is not, so this is moot.

Your personal experience makes it an anecdote rather than fact. One would need to point to systematic studies, as CharonY did above, to make a case for saying something works.

We’ve established that coroner did not say they did. Someone else said it. We don’t know how familiar the pathologist was with the case, and if it was a doctor who was interviewed to get a quote, we don’t know exactly what the reporter asked them. We’ve also established that there are circumstances where you can’t breathe through your mouth. So we’ve covered this.There are situations where you can’t breathe through your mouth but could breathe through your nose. Perhaps that was what the pathologist was referring to. It’s not clear.

Does this process (the entire process) destroy water?

I don’t know. I’m not a pathologist. Yes, most of the time.

The coroner didn’t say that. “Pathologist Dr Peter Jackson said Mr Gleeson's death, on January 23, was caused by asphyxiation due in part to the tampons, and said the sleeping tablets would also have added to his breathing difficulties. Coroner Michael Burgess recorded a verdict of accidental death.” The coroner was Burgess. The remark is attributed to Jackson. The article doesn’t clarify Jackson’s involvement in the case.

If it takes 200,000 years, that’s a “no” according to the conditions of the OP. If one iteration annihilates the world before we send people to space, that’s also a “no” The result also depends on what “end up in the same place” means and what “etcetc” includes. If the requirements are vague, then it’s more likely to be true, but predictions are like that. Psychics make money relying on it (the Barnum effect)

You can choke…

Evolution was not part of the framing, and the question was if all would end up in the same place. So you do agree. Given how close we know we came to nuclear annihilation on more than one occasion, one has to think that in some iterations, it would happen. In some iterations, a critical person dies an untimely death not seen in other incarnations. A butterfly flaps its wings…

Chaos theory says no. Life on earth is highly nonlinear, even tiny differences in the starting conditions, or the influence of random events, would yield different outcomes.

I recently read a comment about this, arguing that it makes sense for the brain to be close to the sensory input of the eyes, ears and nose. Sight perhaps the most important, since visual reaction times can be crucial to survival.

Why is that absurd? Is there any evidence to the contrary?

Some restaurant food tastes better simply because they use an insane amount of butter. It’s not necessarily better food.

We make EM waves carry information by rapidly modulating them, which would be tough to do with gravitational waves.

The Apollo CO2 scrubbers removed CO2 but did not regenerate oxygen. LiOH is converted to Li2CO3 and water. If you regenerate the oxygen you require extra mass and energy. The Apollo fuel cells used oxygen to generate power, so is there even a net saving?

Note that “gravity waves” has a specific meaning, and it’s not what is described here. The “grooves” speculation can be tested by thinking about what would happen if a satellite were stationary. If there were grooves in the gravitational field, the object would remain, but we know it would fall towards the celestial object. And there’s no theoretical basis for such ripples in a static situation.

I was curious about the amount of oxygen used - We breath in around 10,000 L of air per day (search results vary from 7500 to 11500), so that’s ~2,000 L of oxygen, but only convert about a quarter of that to CO2, so 500 L. At 22.4 L per mole for an ideal gas, that’s around 22 moles. ~350 grams per day.

The photon is not localized to a point. It has a wavelength.

Do you see the connection between these two statements? If you can’t determine the distance between the particles, as their location is uncertain, then you can’t make precise claims about the energy. If you can estimate the separation, then you can calculate the potential energy, and see if it’s a problem. You also have to consider that pair production happens near a nucleus, which has a charge, and that will exert a force on the created charged particles, in opposite directions, which would separate them. And you haven’t done a calculation that you’ve shared with us. Because there is a magnetic field present, and the are moving. If you know the strength if the field - in this example it’s 1 T - you can determine their kinetic energy (or the speed), from the radius of curvature.

The obvious answer is thst they aren’t created at zero distance. Are you familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? What you think is far less important than what you can show. I haven’t seen any calculations.

Wolfram alpha can do computations, including topic-specific applications https://www.wolframalpha.com