swansont

There are elements of quantum mechanics that can't be explained using classical mechanics, so your dynamic gravity can't explain quantum mechanics in these terms. It can't explain everything, but it can explain everything? You are making lots of promises, and yet you haven't delivered on any of them. Soon it will be time to put up or shut up.

That's one equation you need to show; the gravity on the moon is not the same as on earth. The trend of gravity varying from one planet to another is not obvious, other than being proportional to its mass. If you can't show this, then the notion of it varying is moot. Telling us what it isn't, isn't particularly helpful. Especially when "substance" typically means it is made of particles. Is there any other substance that isn't? So it's 1/r^2, which is what Newton's law already says. And Newtonian gravity explains almost all of what we observe (GR explains the small deviations from Newtonian gravity). So what does your conjecture bring to the table? If this is a correction, you should be able to point to phenomena that don't fit with Newtonian gravity. Same comment as above - what about these are unexplained, and how exactly (i.e. not hand-waving) does your idea fix this? This all seems consistent with the fallacy of personal incredulity - that because you don't understand something, nobody does.

Yes, but perhaps you've had the experience of knowing something is A or B, but the topic is sufficiently esoteric, and encountered so infrequently that you can't remember which one is correct. (and then the 50/50/90 rule comes into play) I've had this happen to me on several topics

"It's wrong" is the one that matters. All else is theatre As you see. But this requires expertise in geology and biology as well as physics. Are you, in fact, and expert in all of these fields? Or is it possible that you simply aren't aware of the mainstream science that accounts for each of these?

Formulas, which allow for specific predictions. Explaining how it works is a start, but you need more detail. What are the details of how this substance gets from the sun to a planet? What happens when a body blocks the sun, or otherwise interrupts the flow of this substance? We've done experiments on how time changes owing to gravitational effects. Can you come up with the same formula based on this approach? This is unclear to me. It suggests that gravity of a planet/body only depends on its distance from the sun Which is no evidence, since that's already explained by mainstream science. You're getting way ahead of yourself. You can't explain anything without the underlying hypothesis being demonstrated. You have three different explanations here. Are they compatible with each other, or are you just using a shotgun approach, hoping that something in here is on target?

1. No, it doesn't. This is far too lacking in detail to make such a claim. 2. Who is CM? QM is far more nuanced than this. The basic model this corresponds to - the Bohr model - is incorrect. Even so, can you derive the energy levels of the hydrogen atom starting only with your material? Can you explain the Lamb shift with your "model"? The hyperfine splitting of the ground state of hydrogen? The fact that the ground state has no orbital angular momentum?

Or maybe it's because he's not a lawyer. Every profession has its own nomenclature, and people outside of that profession won't be as well-versed in the language that is peculiar to it. As Peterkin notes, "quash" is likely one of those terms.

At best this would be a (regional) dialect. Similar to someone “aksing” a question. I’m bothered by the British tendency to drop the “h” that starts a word, or drops an “r” at the end, etc. (oh, that’s not all Brits who do this? Imagine that!) I’d go with that, rather than assigning a motive without evidence. What we learn when we’re young is hard to change. Consider how some people can’t overcome this when they try to speak another language (“shibboleth” story from the Bible, or the stereotypical scene of a Japanese or Chinese speaker pronouncing “L” and substituting “R” e.g. “lollipop” as “rorrypop”)

Yep. As I and others have repeatedly pointed out, there are a number of words where lay definitions and physics ones differ, sometimes significantly. (e.g. coincidence) I would hope that physicists, at least, would recognize this.

You mean potatoes with copper and zinc electrodes jammed in them? The electricity comes from the metals. The potato is a salt bridge, conducting electricity. Not the source. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/a-potato-battery-can-light-up-a-room-for-over-a-month-180948260/ the potato is not, in and of itself, an energy source. What the potato does is simply help conduct electricity by acting as what’s called a salt-bridge between the the two metals, allowing the electron current to move freely across the wire to create electricity. Numerous fruits rich in electrolytes like bananas and strawberries can also form this chemical reaction. They're basically nature’s version of battery acid. (You can do the same thing just using salt water, if you build it right. Those plans are also somewhere out on the intertubes)

Not sure where you're going with this. The energy of the electron states in e.g. a hydrogen atom is not the mass energy of the electron, it's the energy from the electrostatic interaction. The potential well is 13.6 eV deep for the ground state electron. In He+ this would quadruple (Z^2 dependence), even though the electron's mass energy is the same An electron in the Bohr model has a kinetic energy of 13.6 eV and a potential energy of -27.2 eV, but we must recall the Bohr model is not a physically correct depiction.

It's a standing wave in a potential well

If electrons had a trajectory, they would be accelerating, and would radiate. QM is why we have orbitals and not orbits, and the location is undetermined unless measured. The relativistic corrections are to the energy, not the speed. Most journal papers are careful about this; many pop-sci descriptions are not. It's a sloppiness of explaining things with classical descriptions that don't actually hold up when compared to the science. It's understandable when you're trying to reach a broader audience, but in this case it's watered down to the point where it's wrong. Yes, but I was trying to make the point (to the OP; you already know this) that in science we quantify things. And the situation being proposed has been looked at, and the only effect we see is the one we know about. It's small, and it leaves no room for some other conjecture.

I doubt it. Quantum computing helps with factoring, so it helps when when you have a number that's the product of two large prime numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad#Quantum_and_post-quantum_cryptography an adversary with a quantum computer would still not be able to gain any more information about a message encrypted with a one time pad than an adversary with just a classical computer. Whether a book cipher counts, I'm not 100% sure, but it's not the kind of encryption the quantum systems are supposed to solve. Trivia: I once saw that someone had addressed a letter to my workplace with the proposed recipient "Beale cipher crew" I can neither confirm nor deny that such a crew existed

We do, in accordance with E=mc^2 IOW, in accordance with mainstream physics. But because c is so big, the mass change is small, and difficult to observe. But that's been done; an isotope of Fe in a Penning trap was observed to have two different frequencies, which means two masses - one for the excited state and one for the ground state. http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/278 In principle, any energy other than that associated with linear momentum of the center-of-mass will raise the mass of an object. Again, this is standard relativity, and not evidence in support of any new hypothesis (in fact, it's likely evidence against any new hypothesis, since we only see the increase that we expect.) QM doesn't treat electrons as moving; there is no classical trajectory one can assign to them.

! Moderator Note Please provide a model and supporting evidence.

! Moderator Note Copy that. Thread locked.

We want science. This being a science discussion board. Which all beside the point, since GR reduces to Newtonian gravity and quantum gravity is similarly only important for small scales. And doesn’t look like magnetism.

! Moderator Note Assertions with nothing to back them does not meet the requirements of Speculations.

I think he wanted to be there so the crowd would be cheering him, and he could exhort them to march on. I don’t think he had any intention of physically leading the charge into the building.

The full equation is E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 The total energy depends on mass and momentum (related to kinetic energy)

! Moderator Note Please do not hijack threads. If you have an alternative science view and are willing to defend it, open a thread in speculations. This is not the place to raise objections to mainstream science

I think we’re swimming upstream of a press release/pop-sci filter. It says the capacity is 200 MW but that’s a power, so it doesn’t really make sense. The 13 hours may be how long it stays hot enough to be usable, and safe. I found out recently there’s US building code/regulations/recommendations on minimum water heater temperature, below which Legionnaires’ disease becomes a risk. Probably don’t want to pump Legionella bacteria all around the city.

It's my example. And I was trying to point out that the object can bottom out. Naturally, I will use an example where that will happen. ("there needs to be enough of the fluid present for this to happen. Otherwise it will bottom out.") Others are telling me that no it will not bottom out, and using their own examples. But that doesn't rebut my claim. All I need is one example where it bottoms out and my claim is true. And any claim that it won't bottom out are false. All the rest is just moving the goalposts. You're rebutting something, but not my claim. I'm not addressing situation 2 (though there is still a minimum fluid amount required). I never was.

The problem is that's not the situation you described. You need to have this container on all sides, so the water is not free to flow away from the object that is floating. You lose this once you "dig up in front of it" (P.S. I fixed the link in your post. URL shorteners don't normally fly here.)