swansont

! Moderator Note If one is to take this as a topic of discussion and not preaching (because you’ve been warned about that), and that this isn’t a topic for science, by your own insistence, we’re left with religious sources…but you haven’t really provided any. The disappointingly vague introduction almost excuses the unserious responses and poor signal/noise. (which will be cleaned up) ! Moderator Note Angels (presumably) exist in religious literature and culture, which is the domain in which this can be discussed. Anyone who can't follow that limitation should not post.

Yes, it seems I had a spurious “kilo” in there. 250 W not 250 kW, but that was notation, not calculation 250 W *3600 sec/hr*10 hr is 9 Megajoules, so the result is correct I was conservative in my numbers, and the being in question wouldn’t be human. That was for context only - a roughly human-sized quadruped (to maximize area) that wasn’t warm-blooded should require less energy than a human. Mammal metabolism scales roughly somewhere between M^0.67 and M^0.75, so the size limit might be somewhat smaller, but still decidedly in the macroscopic realm, and the demand goes down if they aren’t warm-blooded, or if they are, they regulate to a lower temperature. Those are not energy-related objections. My point is simply that energy availability isn’t the restriction here.

1 food calorie is ~4.1 kilojoules. If you need 2000 food calories, then you need 8.2 Megajoules. A fair bit of that for a human is sustaining our warm-bloodedness If your solar insolation is 250 kw/m^2 for 10 hours, that’s 9 Mj/m^2. The energy isn’t the limit.

It’s being studied/considered https://news.miami.edu/stories/2021/12/are-black-holes-and-dark-matter-the-same.html https://www.quantamagazine.org/black-holes-from-the-big-bang-could-be-the-dark-matter-20200923/

! Moderator Note Unsupported guesswork is not a theory. More rigor was requested and none supplied, so this is closed.

That’s what the quoted part said - it’s lower than the unconfined (i.e. free-space) vacuum. Which is not zero.

They have energy, so they would, but likely their contribution would be far smaller than whatever the source of the field was ! Moderator Note This discussion needs far more rigor than is in the OP. Formatting fixed. Also, link removed in accordance with rule 2.7

If you must respond to obvious spammers, for the love of Zeus, don’t quote the spam link. You’re helping them by padding the SEO they seek with a second link, and since we’re going to ban them anyway, you’re just creating extra work for the mods because now we have to go and hide your post, too. So not only aren’t you helping, you’re actively making things worse. We would rather you just report the post, and beyond that, ignore it.

No, that’s not correct. The pressure under water will be the atmospheric pressure plus the pressure from the weight of the water, pgh (p is the density) You add 1 atmosphere with a column of water of about 10.3 meters, or ~33 feet. Water is almost incompressible, so you add another atmosphere for each 33 feet.

…in space

! Moderator Note No, assertions are not evidence. Repeating yourself does not make things true. As you have not presented us with a model or testable scientific predictions, as the rules require, this is closed. Do not re-introduce this topic.

Neutron absorption in Li-7 requires ~2.5 MeV to produce tritium. It’s endothermic. That energy is not available for heating anything. Wait. “Ask the designers” implies that this system is in place somewhere. I though this was your proposal. What reactor is doing this?

If it’s endothermic (Li-7), the Q of the reaction is not available. The energy of neutrons not absorbed is not available. Lithium melts at 180.5 °C What happens if the water line shuts down? Are you going to run the risk of it getting hot enough to generate steam, and then have the lithium melt when a pump fails?

That thermal energy is not captured by the plasma. Neutron absorption by Li-7 is endothermic. AFAIK no fusion reactors have incorporated these components. Why would they, when we’re so far from break-even?

Which field physics does this fall under? Your definitions are related to models, not reality. If it’s truth you seek, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. And you need to provide evidence of an infinite universe.

Yes, and the point is…what? Mass, length and time are separate concepts, and are used differently in physics. Accuracy and precision have nothing to do with units. This remains irrelevant to the discussion.

How do you capture it?

Physics isn’t in the business of telling us about reality. It tells us how nature behaves. If it actually describes reality that’s a happy accident, because how do you test for that? If your experiment is at the highest precision you can achieve, there’s no way to discern an underlying behavior. There’s always a “black box” and we can’t see inside.

It’s descriptive. 3 meters is not the same thing as 3 kg or 3 seconds. Arguing about “truth” is a red herring.

If your resolution was one meter, you could not have a result that’s exactly one meter. That’s an issue of significant digits and precision, though, not units. There used to be. Made of platinum and iridium. It was, by definition, one meter. One problem is that copies are not perfect. ! Moderator Note This is off-topic and would need to be argued (and supported) in its own thread.

We know that classical descriptions fail at small scales. That’s the mathematical nature of singularities. GR is a classical theory.

Logic is not a substitute for evidence, and evidence is interpreted via models that allow for comparison and prediction. It’s not enough to just be logical. Newtonian/Galilean physics, for example, is logical, but it doesn’t match experiment, so at best it’s an approximation You can do whatever helps you to gain insight, but relativity would not have been accepted without experimental confirmation.

Here’s an interesting take on the Fermi problem that’s related to this - the dark forest. Not bringing attention to yourself because someone out there might annihilate you. https://kottke.org/21/12/the-dark-forest-or-why-we-should-keep-still-and-not-look-for-aliens

But relativity does not “turn the earth into a pancake” because that implies something is happening to the earth. The earth is a pancake in certain frames of reference. That’s always the case.

The length is different, but nothing has changed. Should have? There’s no situation where they should have decayed, because that’s not in accordance with the laws of physics. You can’t make the comparison to what happens if the laws of physics are different. That’s ridiculous. It’s not a change in the shape. The shape depends on the frame of reference. But you’re arguing based on one set of physics laws and some other set of laws. Surely I get to fabricate the same thing.