swansont

! 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.

No, it is not. The large radius means the mass is quite large, the effect of movement of a small mass is going to be small. How would it do that? edit: keep in mind that this shift is happening over the course of millions of years

All science is provisional. There is no data to support this; the weak interaction is very short-ranged and is not responsible for the gravitational interaction exhibited by dark matter. WIMPs are particles not in the standard model, and interact via mechanism(s) not in the standard model. Saying it interacts weakly is ambiguous, since there is something called the weak interaction, and there is also the notion of not having a robust coupling. Physicists kinda painted ourselves into a corner a little bit with this

There's a part where they claim "Neither classical nor standard quantum theory predicts quantum coherence for water, largely because they ignore quantum fluctuations and the interaction between matter and the vacuum electromagnetic field (VEMF), which are taken into account in Quantum Field Theory (QFT)" but there are no citations. Not surprising, as they say it's not taken into account, but then, you have to develop this model, which they do not do. So they're just forging ahead with the assertion that such interactions are relevant without showing it, and without specifying what these interactions actually would be doing. and then "QFT explicitly recognizes an extended VEMF interacting with matter, as well as quantum fluctuations whereby energy in the VEMF in the form of photons could be captured by matter." which AFAIK is flat-out wrong. The vacuum does not passively give you photons that could be captured. You can't tap into the energy of the vacuum.

OTOH, if they were making real progress they could report real progress, in terms of milestones The one possible positive here is that it's not obvious that they will be leaving the project in private hands for further development; it seems like the government is all-in on the work.

I don't see where that was suggested " i assume the geologic science is correct and that the tectonic plates forming the continents as we know now, originate from 1 tectonic plate about 300 million years ago" sounds a lot like you were, in fact, saying that Why must it? It's not clear at all that you are discussing the earth's gravitational field. You're worried about the center-of-mass shifting; what you could do is see how much it might shift. The deepest part of the ocean is ~10 km, and most land is under a few km above sea level. Compare this to the radius of the earth, being ~6400 km. IOW, the amount of mass represented by the continents is small compared to that of the earth. If you rearrange the masses on the surface, what might change slightly is the wobble of the earth's rotation, which is something we already observe on shorter time scales. Freezing and melting of ice sheets causes this, too. https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/why-the-earth-wobbles/

So I looked up what these are; they're like the bendy part of a bendy straw. You can imagine that the bent sections "give" a little when you pull or push on them, but the end section is connected to the more rigid part, so the central parts would just expand slightly under a pull, like a spring, but the ones at the edge can't do this, so they "pop" open. As a trend, not an absolute, because the manufacturing variations mean that each section might require more or less of a force to make it pop.

As has been revealed in the other fusion discussions recently, this article is thin on useful information. How hot the plasma gets is only one technical aspect, but like the adage about the law, when the temperature of the plasma is what you have, pound on the temperature of the plasma. I don't see where they explain how close to break-even they are, or how close to self-sustaining they are. Any predictions need to be taken with a grain of salt. I'm confident that if the history of the project were looked into, you would find schedule slips galore. Such is the nature of both research and construction projects. This thing has been in operation for >15 years.

I gave my assessment and nothing has changed The fact that Fleischmann and cold fusion are mentioned in some of the associated works gives a hint. Scientists leaping to conclusions without sufficient supporting information is hardly a new phenomenon.

Well, no. It's not your thread, and nobody is really obligated to follow a line of inquiry that goes beyond the scope of the OP. If you want to start a new thread, feel free, but you can't compel people to participate in it.