swansont

Virtual particles in “empty” space appear in pairs, owing to conservation laws. Particle and antiparticle. They are not real, though. They’re a calculation tool, part of a model. (The notion of “borrowed” energy is an attempt to explain quantum physics in classical terms, but that’s another discussion)

! Moderator Note The topic is SCOTUS leaks, not the details of the cases.

No, unless you have an exact match (like why the fundamental charge and the conversion of eV to Joules are the same number - because they have a common basis) then it’s accidental. You could take combinations of other constants and scale them to get a custom unit system and have an equality. The choice of the value of a meter and the second are arbitrary. There’s nothing special about most mks/SI units

I took the statement to mean that entanglement violates relativity. Since you’ve clarified that this is not the case, my apologies, and please disregard my comment.

No, it’s not. If you wish to discuss it, open your own thread on entanglement, so your misconceptions can be addressed. Entangled particles are in undetermined states until detected, so how is anything “encoded”?

h=? kqc J-s (not J/s) =? J/K * Coul * m/s J cancels. Nothing else does. They are not equal They can’t be equal if it depends on the unit system.

OK, does h have the same units as kqc? Are they numerically the same if you use cgs units?

You forgot to include the units.

Your idea was considered and rejected. There’s no way for the energy of the light to exceed the mass energy of the source that emitted it, and that energy is actually a small fraction of the mass energy. Light would not form a halo as is required if dark matter. Repeating your vague claims doesn’t change this. ! Moderator Note Since you’ve not offered up any analysis, which required, and there’s no point in re-hashing any of this, we’re done. Don’t re-introduce this without a thorough mathematical treatment

What does the OP have to do with how long America will can last?

I don’t see how you get your diagrams from this.

Sure, but one has to recognize that any individual might not see a direct benefit from any particular bit of spending - my tax money supports infrastructure on the other side of the country that I will never use - and that economic benefit isn’t the only metric to apply. e.g. GPS makes life better for a lot of people, even if it’s not putting money in their pocket.

Compare the results from bouncing off Mercury and Venus. That tells you how much of an effect there is. Or look at the equation, and do the math. Also, it’s only the light in the tiny region near the sun that’s affected.

With Venus being on the far side of the sun. Also done with Mercury. The delay is only appreciable close to the sun. If the path is grazing, the delay is 200 microseconds. If the path is 35 solar radii away, it drops to 60 microseconds. So yes, the additional distance to Venus (or beyond) adds nothing within measurable precision. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shapiro-time-delay-EN.svg

No. “imagine” is inappropriate here. You need to calculate the amount, using mainstream physics. That’s depicting what happens near a black hole. Most of the volume of a galaxy is not made up of a black hole. “The Schwarzschild radius of the supermassive black hole at the Galactic Center of the Milky Way is approximately 12 million kilometres” (less than a light-minute) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius By how much? The Shapiro delay from the sun was 200 microseconds. Do that 20000 times, and you get a delay of 4 seconds. The rules of speculations require more rigor than you are providing.

What are the physics equations that lead to the circles and dots in your diagram?

Not all of the light reflects. In fact, very little of it does. Same for gravitational deflection. In any event, twice a very small number is still a small number.

No, not all research projects deliver them. But that’s the nature of basic research. As my thesis adviser once noted, “If we knew the answer, it wouldn’t be research.” So that’s not really a valid criticism, since, as I pointed out, you don’t know what will be discovered. You have to look at research in broader terms. There’s an argument to be made for funding diverse projects, but it’s not like the LHC is the only project being funded.

By how much? Enough to make the mass loss significant? It could go up by 10x and you still wouldn’t get to 1% “What if” isn’t a model with evidence. It’s a guess. You really need to get in the habit of running the numbers behind your claims. Why? How does this affect redshift? Coming back? In physics we quantify claims. Hand-waving doesn’t count for much.

Since the energy of the light can't exceed the mass energy of a star, and the mass of dark matter exceeds the mass of "normal" matter, this seems trivially falsified. Take the example of the sun, which you should have worked out. 4 x 10^9 kg/s converted to photons, which means about 1.2 x 10^16 kg/year, or ~ 10^25 kg per billion years. The sun's mass is 2 x 10^30 kg. There just isn't enough light.

One example: particle accelerators in general are used in medicine - radionuclide production and radiation therapy

I remember sitting in on a review when I was a postdoc at TRIUMF and a (mid-level) government representative asked "What are you going to discover?" (probably in reference to the two-year funding window) You don't know what will be discovered. You don't know what innovations people will come up with to do new experiments. What you do know is that this has always happened.

Equations describing the behavior of nature need to stem from some kind of scientific principle. You can't just pop in and say "it's all Riemann spheres" without some physical principle being tied into it. What does it mean to us? (you've already been told appealing to this alleged computer is a non-starter)

Standard physics says it gets heavier because E=mc^2. If you have some other reason, then your conjecture says relativity must be wrong.

Existing theory already predicts this Where’s the math? This is less than illuminating. What does it mean that you have different things labeled “red” “weak isospin” “mass” etc.