swansont

! Moderator Note Seriously - we don’t allow advertising or promotion. If you keep bringing this up the topic will be closed.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/05/new-study-finds-a-high-minimum-wage-creates-jobs.html The assertion in a 2010 op-ed was that higher minimum wage meant “Say goodbye to entry level jobs and hello to permanent double digit unemployment.” “Over the next thirteen years, a long list of cities and states enacted minimum wage increases of unprecedented size. Between 2014 and 2022, California increased its minimum wage by 56 percent in inflation-adjusted terms. Over a similar time period, New York raised its wage floor by 72 percent. Permanent double digit unemployment did not ensue. In fact, not only did these historically large minimum wage hikes fail to put all fast food workers out of job, but a new study indicates that they actually induced job growth.”

Yes, the equation is E2 = p2c2 +m2c4

! Moderator Note You’ve been a member for almost six years. You’re not considered a new member, and expected to follow the rules. Advertising is not permitted. What is required is the (alleged) science, not an outline of the book.

Does that “fully and accurately” simulate an electron? Any measuring instrument is limited in its precision. Does it? What about terms that are not eigenvalues, or do not commute? And can you determine the wave function for all systems, and solve the equations analytically?

No, for two reasons. A computer simulation rests on some algorithm, which would be based on quantum mechanics. Do all systems allow an analytic QM solution? No. Some require numerical solutions, which are not exact. Does QM provide a full description of an electron? Also no. The uncertainty principle, for example.

You have not provided any reason to think that such a vortex would have any effect on gravity. No evidence that any wind speed would have an effect. Without that, why would anyone bother with an experiment? Logic isn’t sufficient. Science tells us how the world behaves, so anything not tied to that is missing a key element. The rules require something beyond fantasy. This isn’t the WAG forum. You have an opportunity to learn science, if you are interested. But if all you want to do is lecture based on stuff you’ve made up, we aren’t interested.

A moderator quoting the rules is somehow unexpected, and funny? (also, that’s “you’re”)

There are issues that are already acknowledged as being outside of science. One shouldn’t have to reiterate those boundaries with each new argument

! Moderator Note from Rule 2.8: Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall.

! Moderator Note Yes. It looks to me like you are 0 for 6 in following the guidelines I linked to. Stream of consciousness posting really doesn’t cut it. Some rigor is required.

What have you done so far? Nobody is going to just do your homework for you

! Moderator Note This is a discussion site, not your blog

No competent scientist claims that this is the case. Anyway, please review the guidelines for posting in speculations

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone

Limited by c, obviously. You could probably estimate the linear speed by calculating the rotational speed from the in-spiral graphs (inverse of the period), and using v = wr and with the Schwarzschild radius for r. (assume equal mass BHs)

Sort of. It can’t spontaneously begin to rotate without an external torque. But the current would feel a force, and if properly connected, the wire would rend to rotate in one direction while the battery+magnets would rotate in the other, such that the angular momentum would remain zero.

! Moderator Note The rules of this forum say otherwise

No, you misread that. M1 + M2 = ~100 and the mass of the resulting BH was ~91 The surface are limitation you cite is ~70 if M1 and M2 are (roughly) equal. 79, if they are 75 and 25. Converting 9 solar masses to energy isn’t in conflict. The numbers you cited earlier tell us that it was not instantly converted. It took a few weeks, if your number is correct.

You need to provide scientific evidence to back up your claim.

! Moderator Note No, it doesn’t. And making claims like this without evidence or a model means this does not fulfill the requirements of speculations. And this has been pointed out to you before

What mathematical model is the basis for this conjecture? Is there any independent evidence that any of these effects will happen?

It could be coherent if a resonant cavity were used. It’s how dye lasers work.

I put this up a few years back, over the “Time Service” sign at work. Not many people noticed. Had to wait a year from my original plan, owing to rain. (paper sign) I got rained out again and couldn’t do a “Navel Observatory” one last year.

The kinds of crystals, or the general name? Wavelength conversion crystals, nonlinear crystals, or photonic crystals for four-wave mixing are some descriptions There are a lot of different crystals https://www.unitedcrystals.com/NLOCOverview.html https://www.rp-photonics.com/nonlinear_crystal_materials.html