swansont

! Moderator Note Moved to speculations; go ahead and make your case, but there’s nothing here relevant to the original thread (i.e. there’s nothing in the OP about a rotating source)

But you can’t just summon a charged particle into existence by itself. Or a particle with spin. That’s magic, not science.

You keep mentioning Euler force, which is 1) tangential to the rotation, not radial, and 2) dependent on angular acceleration What you haven’t done is quantify anything to demonstrate why this could matter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_force

Virtual particles are still subject to these conservation laws.

How does that conserve charge and angular momentum?

That’s not what I asked. How do you form the virtual positron, and obey conservation of charge and angular momentum?

What if it’s an electron? How do you form the virtual antiparticle, and obey conservation of charge and angular momentum?

Uneven mass distribution does contribute, but the effect is small. It’s been measured. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

It’s one thing to say we can discover the unknown. It’s another thing to say what we know to be true will be overturned.

! Moderator Note Posting non-mainstream material in a mainstream discussion is against our rules, too Material also has to be relevant to the question, and you don’t make that connection

You don’t know what you’re going to find, and what impact it will have.

I do; I used to build them. Spin-flip in atoms does not rely on movement.

No. Fusion reactors exist that have zero lasers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_confinement_fusion

Interpretations are to help in your understanding of QM. You go with what works for you.

Yes There aren’t that many things in outer space in between us and the things we can see. If you assume visible light, with a photon energy of ~2 eV, there are more than 10^18 photons per watt of power. Our sun emits more than 10^26 watts, as Mordred has detailed. Your estimation of trillions is woefully low. What is there to absorb or scatter photons? Yes Probably also yes.

I find “feeling hotter” to be utterly unsurprising. An obese person is better insulated and is also somewhat more spherical than a skinny person. Both promote retaining heat. I don’t see how wearing heavy clothes would incentivize exercise, which raises your core temperature. For me, feeling hot has the opposite effect. Overheating tended to shut down my ability to exercise. It’s easier to keep warm than cool off; in my experience we tolerate a wider range of cooler temperatures than warmer temperatures from a starting point of what’s normally comfortable (“room temperature” or ~22 degrees C)

How big of an effect is this? And why does it have to be on the moon?

You’ve been given examples of clocks that have no movement, or are not based on movement (i.e. the movement is incidentall)

The correlation exists, but saying it’s “physical” implies an interaction, and one needs to explain what that interaction is. The alleged paradox arises from assuming QM is ultimately classical, which is a really bad assumption.

You aren’t going to make a BH if the electrons don’t get close enough to each other, i.e. within 2x the Schwarzschild radius. Otherwise you just have a very brief moment where there’s a small electron cloud that will fly apart from the repulsion.

You want to shoot electrons together. They need enough energy to get close enough to form the black hole, and the potential energy of the configuration is the minimum amount of energy it will take. (The gravitational attraction is small, and I’m ignoring the bremsstrahlung losses as the electrons get close, which would likely be significant. And ignoring a whole host of technical obstacles.)

You should be able to calculate the electrostatic potential energy of an assembly of electrons that’s dense enough to be a black hole. Nuclei aren’t black holes, and the EPE there is measured in MeV for just a few protons. For 10 electrons you have a Schwarzschild radius of about 10^-56 m. Since the EPE is 1/r, you have to get the additional ~40 orders of magnitude of size reduction, which raises that EPE by the same factor. So it’s going to be at least 10^45 eV I’d put that in the “not possible” category

! Moderator Note Block universe discussion has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128450-time-and-relativity-split-from-the-nature-of-time/

Important cosmology update

Sure. An unidentified object that’s a weather balloon could get tangled with a known one.