swansont

koti has been banned since his return only showed that his desire was to post in bad faith and stir the pot.

! Moderator Note Your previous discussion on causality was shut down for lack of evidence. All you've done here is re-state the hypothesis. Under the guise of discussing the aether.

Was efficiency the goal? Availability was probably the goal. But since efficiency affects profit, I'm sure some effort was made on nuclear plant efficiency. Solar cells are much more efficient than the ones we had in the past. Wind turbine systems are probably more efficient as well. Some research projects are small, others are big. It depends on the research. I've been on papers with 30 names on the paper, and others with 4 or 5. LHC and other accelerator collaborations are large out of necessity, since there are a lot of "moving parts" to those efforts.

How would one confirm that correlation, since it would take so long to know the details of the distant particle's state? And it may not be possible, if that other particle is far enough away and can no longer be observed owing to the expansion of space.

! Moderator Note We're a science site. If you are going to invoke telepathy you need to go elsewhere for discussion.

This isn’t what relativity says. If this alien is 100 LY away, they see Bob as he was 100 years ago, because it takes 100 years for the light to get to the alien. Relative motion will mean they will disagree on how much time has elapsed, but under no circumstances does relativity say that the past can be changed.

That’s all? The sun emits almost 400 yottawatts (which comes after zetta, which comes after exa, which comes after peta) And the sun is very close, since the emitted power per unit area drops off with the square of the distance. If you posted it here, we could read more about it.

If there was anything classified, there’s a good chance it would be declassified in 2027. 50 years is a common horizon for that. If it dud not, it must have bypassed that parabolic reflector, meaning it must have had an even larger amplitude.

It’s far-fetched in that there is no scientific basis provided for it. Since there is no physical basis for the portal, I don’t see how you can say it’s safer. You are proposing a comparison to fictitious systems. Do you understand that this is not science?

Because you asked “Are you saying they are fixed from start to finish?” Now you admit to knowing that I was not. One wonders why you asked the question. No. You can’t tell what the property was before, since you can’t tell identical particles apart, and/or there was no known “before” property. In parametric down-conversion, for example, the photons are created as entangled. There is no “before” state. You’ve not shown an example of a system that has a “before” state that could be identified.

Of course they do. It’s because they receive signals from different directions. The issue is that they could not tell which horn got the signal, and which was the background. http://www.bigear.org/Gray-Ellingsen.pdf “Ohio State recorded the difference in intensity between the two beams, but not the sign, so there was an ambiguity in which beam the emission was detected.”

On what basis do you claim this? Surely the scientists know where the reflector was pointed, and thus the possible direction of the source.

Are you incapable of determining whether or not I said that? Or that I’ve repeatedly confirmed that the states are undetermined? I guess reading comprehension is one of the issues here.

Not sure how that changes things. Newtonian gravity doesn’t have a mechanism. GR has warped spacetime. Quantum gravity would have an exchange of virtual gravitons. How do you test which one is the “true” form? How do we know it’s not invisible pink fairies?

! Moderator Note AFAIK, patents do not have any assessment for safety. The Vat’s advice is good; owing to your framing of the inquiry I have to close this since we don’t dispense medical advice

Models describe behavior, and can only be tested by comparing with observed behavior.

The drawing isn’t the shortcoming here. You haven’t presented anything that meets the level of rigor we need.

Speculation has to be backed up with evidence. Invoking God is not a rigorous scientific argument.

No, that’s ludicrous. Don’t anthropomorphize nature. She hates that. Besides, you get the same result regardless of the reference frame. Whether or not something happens doesn’t depend on your frame of reference. What is your evidence that there is a computer that runs the universe? Where is it located?

It is not a rules violation to have someone disagree with you. The staff does not consider it to be “harassment”

So? What’s “magical” about that?

There’s no fusion described here.

! Moderator Note You’ve neglected to include any rigorous discussion of how fusion is achieved.

What does one have to do with the other? Fields aren't objects.

Or it could just be referring to the other people participating in the discussion. Whatever. Since you're hung up on the phrasing, all it means is that people don't believe in most deities, and if you don't believe in them, i.e. you don't think they really exist, your position must be that they are made up. Better? I don't know what "common meme" you're referring to; I was just explaining the rationale behind a comment. What apologetic? You seem hell-bent on making this about something that not evident in the original statement, or subsequent commentary.