swansont

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.

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.