swansont

On the one hand, it is amazing that math describes these basic laws of nature, but on the other hand, it seems required, by the very definition of what we mean by a law of nature. What would physics look like if certain phenomena were not following some mathematical description? Are there examples of such? Would we even recognize the behavior if it didn't follow some pattern that could be described with math?

! Moderator Note The rules require that you post information here for discussion; the discussion can't rely on outside links

A model would allow one to quantify the frequency drop. It is because we have models for different scattering processes that we know that scattering does not match observation of the redshift. I didn’t say the model isn’t possible (you’re not doing too well on reading comprehension here), I said you haven’t provided one. But if you’re going to invoke unknown particles, you need to have a really good model. Which you don’t have, since you don’t have a model of any kind. For example, the model for Compton scattering says the wavelength shift and angle of scattering are related. There’s an equation, and it follows other laws of physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering (but we also know Compton scattering isn’t responsible for the redshift)

! Moderator Note As I pointed out before, you were asked for a model, not a mechanism. The mechanism you offered had been falsified. What is so hard to understand?

You implied it by bringing up fuel costs.

! Moderator Note To be precise you were asked for a model and evidence for your proposal, which is not the same thing as a mechanism. You did offer a mechanism, and several people pointed out that the mechanism (scattering) does not account for observations. It is therefore falsified. (Newtonian gravity lacks a mechanism, but that is not sufficient to discard it; gravity really does depend on the masses and distance^2, at the level of precision where we use Newtonian gravity) Lacking a model that matches the evidence means your proposal was unsupported. What is required, then, is to show that expansion is what matches the evidence. ! Moderator Note The thread was closed because you were asked for a model and evidence to support it, and not only failed to do so, you attempted to distract from your failure. In short, the thread was closed because you didn’t follow the rules. Reading more into it is an issue of your motivations, not mine. Others will point out the role of dark energy, and evidence of expansion, but it’s telling that you are not familiar with all of this already

The “plane” has an extent of several degrees, which is much, much larger than any geometry introduced by GR. There is no contradiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination#Observations_and_theories ! Moderator Note The approach of “I don’t understand GR, therefore it is wrong” is fatally flawed. There are two options: 1. Present evidence to support your claims, and an alternate model if you are proposing an alternative 2. Ask questions to fix your knowledge deficiencies What you can’t do is merely assert that mainstream physics is wrong. Not here, at least.

How expensive is uranium, though? $100/kg or thereabouts? How does that compare to the cost of the plant? Which is the primary driver of the cost of the electricity nuke plants produce. Sun and wind are free. The cost of “green” energy is largely driven by infrastructure costs. And that’s a problem? (Biofuels are the product, not the raw material)

! Moderator Note Trying to be cute instead of following the rules is not a winning play. You were asked for a model and evidence, you failed to provide any. Don’t bring this subject up again.

! Moderator Note You do not explain how scattering leads to the observed redshift. You are merely asserting that it will.

Is this really an issue for any green energy production method?

! Moderator Note Only one challenge to mainstream science per thread, please. If you’re going to base an idea on the Doppler shift being wrong, then you’ve got to demonstrate that first

Scattering tends to change the direction of the light, so it would not get to us. Scattering is not the cause of galactic redshift. As John Cuthber has already mentioned, “tired light” is not a viable explanation ! Moderator Note You will need more than that. You need a model and evidence to support it. Not just a bald assertion. This has been pointed out to you before. Moved to speculations while we await support for your idea.

! Moderator Note The "promblem" from my perspective is that you were told to stop preaching and yet you continue to do it As such, this is closed, and you will not bring it up again.

Some of them them are points of stable equilibrium, but the others are not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point L1, L2, and L3 are on the line through the centres of the two large bodies, while L4 and L5 each act as the third vertex of an equilateral triangle formed with the centres of the two large bodies. L4 and L5 are stable, which implies that objects can orbit around them in a rotating coordinate system tied to the two large bodies. The L4 and L5 points are stable points and have a tendency to pull objects into them. Several planets have trojan asteroids near their L4 and L5 points with respect to the Sun; Jupiter has more than one million of these trojans.

! Moderator Note Wrong section, low signal/noise. Moved to trash

I have no idea what someone else’s insights or motivations are. Well, there you go.

Not based on miniaturization, either. While we’re not quite retracing the “computer the size of a room” steps, the devices, the size of early devices is big compared to the number of qubits. Size reduction is ongoing, but these aren’t at the “chips on a board” stage. What kind of logic? Formal logic? Informal? Boolean?

! Moderator Note Speculations must be supported by some combination of a model, testable predictions, and evidence. This isn’t even close.

1. You haven’t provided a video 2. People have to be able to participate without watching videos, per rule 2.7 3. It’s still anecdotal, at best “he thinks” is opinion, not fact. The Copenhagen interpretation is, as you say, philosophy, not physics. Or even physiatry. Where did you see this? A video? The notion that you are part of the physics community such that you could “see” this is fanciful.

! Moderator Note You’ve offered no evidence. Anecdotes aren’t evidence. “probably” isn’t evidence.

! Moderator Note You may have mistyped the URL. This is not a conspiracy discussion site

I noticed this a few months ago; it made reading on my ipad unpleasant. Got an ad-blocker.

Google, how does it work? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_refrigeration#Commercial_development

So exchemist's instincts were correct.