swansont

That’s a tautology. If it ceases to exist as that quantum particle it’s no longer that quantum quantum particle. Hardly illuminating. Not with that phrasing.

Define “oneness” please

! Moderator Note You misunderstand the lay of the land. This is a science discussion site. Mainstream science is taken as the default, as there are years and years of testing and evidence already available. Claims contrary to such science are what require “proof” ! Moderator Note This had better be the last time you offer up religion in a science thread. And you are wrong about this not being preaching.

Thank you.

That second link has the DM breaking the DNA strand, which is not what was posted. "When a dark matter particle enters the detector, it slices through any DNA strands in its path ... physicists can reconstruct the track of the dark matter particle through the machine." This suggests they think that a DM particle will break multiple strands. I wish they would have gone into detail as to why they think DM would interact in this fashion.

Establish the truth of this statement. ! Moderator Note Newton died decades before Darwin was even born, so congratulations, you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the basics of time. Not going to let this trolling go on any further

So how do you tell if the weight varied?

Do you have a link?

Rate of freefall doesn't depend on the mass.

No, it should cool off. Energy is conserved. When disconnected, all of the absorbed photon energy goes into heating the panel. If the photons are generating electricity (at some efficiency, and all else is the same) this energy is not available to contribute to heating it. i.e. some of the thermal energy of the light is now doing work, so there is less thermal energy.

! Moderator Note This is your claim, so it's incumbent upon you to support it, rather than shifting the burden to others having to prove otherwise.

Mass and energy-momentum both contribute to gravitation. If something has translational KE, the mass does not increase Mass and KE are separate contributions to the total energy; E2 = p2c2 +m2c4

No, I don't know. Can you have a mode that's got a wavelength longer than 2x of the event horizon? I don't know what boundary conditions apply.

What event horizon?

If the universe had a finite size, wouldn't the mode density of the vacuum energy levels change with the volume?

! Moderator Note You were asked to post the material here, rather than attaching documents. Why is this a problem?

GR has frame dragging, but this is typically a small effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging The Lense–Thirring effect is very small – about one part in a few trillion. To detect it, it is necessary to examine a very massive object, or build an instrument that is very sensitive.

Can you clarify this - it sounds like you are saying your disbelief in evolution is based on things not claimed by or covered by evolution. Like all science is based on assumptions and has gaps in knowledge? That's an underlying truth, not specific to evolution, so there is no reason to call it out. No, not really. Nothing proactive here. No "anticipation" of new body parts. No evidence is required of things not claimed.

Arikel88 has been banned for incessant preaching

! Moderator Note Whether Jesus was a real person and your personal take on accepting Christianity are separate discussions. Rule 2.5: stay on topic.

! Moderator Note All: please note that that this (i.e. validity of Christianity) and related discussions are off-topic to the thread. Further transgressions will be excommunicated to the trash

In 1D, it should be easy to see that there are discrete wavelengths, since you will get destructive interference if the path length is not a multiple of the half-wavelength. So other wavelengths will not persist. If you consider 3D, there are more paths available and you have more options that avoid destructive interference, but you will still have wavelengths that are excluded from possibility.

! Moderator Note Please establish the truthfulness of your premise(s) before proceeding with arguments that assume they are true

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/how-hardy-is-webb-a-qa-about-the-toughness-of-nasa-s-webb-telescope We know Webb will get struck by micrometeoroids during its lifetime, and we have taken that into account in its design and construction. We sized Webb’s main mirror so that even after years of little impacts it will still have the reflective surface area and quality necessary to do the science. We even did tests on the ground that emulated micrometeoroid impacts to demonstrate what will happen to the mirrors in space. Similarly, part of the reason the sunshield has five layers is so it can tolerate more than the number of expected small holes, and even some tears, and still work as it should. Also, almost all of Webb’s sensitive components (besides the mirrors and sunshield) are protected behind “micrometeoroid armor.” When micrometeoroids do strike, most are so small that they totally disintegrate upon impact, even when they hit something thin like thermal blankets or a sunshield membrane. Critical wires and electronics are shielded behind even more robust metal “armor” or inside metal boxes

What if it’s just lorem ipsum?