swansont

It would depend on h1 and h2 v2 - v1 = sqrt(2g(H-h2))- sqrt(2g(H-h1))

You have mv = sqrt(2m^2g(H-h)) You need to divide both sides by m (sqrt m^2 is m) v = sqrt(2g(H-h)) at h=H it's zero. At h = 0 it has its maximum value

Then "speed" would suffice. p = mv, so as I said, you divide by mass and the mass term goes away. We already covered this.

I'm not unhappy with it; this isn't an area where I spend much time and effort. It's more for folks doing work on foundations of physics. I don't have anything invested in e.g. whether time is emergent or not, since that isn't going to affect how to build and operate clocks in any foreseeable future.

I'm following the description in the link I provided emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.

That's a fundamental property of wave functions. I wouldn't say it's emergent. You might argue that this is fundamental, and having well-defined trajectories is an emergent property, since you tend to need a large mass (and thus a large number of particles conglomerated) for the wave nature to cease dominating. edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Nonliving,_physical_systems The laws of classical mechanics can be said to emerge as a limiting case from the rules of quantum mechanics applied to large enough masses. This is particularly strange since quantum mechanics is generally thought of as more complicated than classical mechanics. The later examples of phase transitions might be a clearer one. It's not a property of a single particle. It's a collective behavior where you need a number of particles in order to observe it.

“Speed of acceleration”? That’s meaningless. Which one? Speed is speed, acceleration is acceleration (which in this case is g)

No. You need to write down the uncertainty in both the position and momentum. You’re saying p > ℏ/2, which has the wrong units

What is acceleration to finish? The acceleration is g

That’s what’s being looked at, AFAIK

You will notice that the mass cancels, since the speed of a falling object is independent of mass.

Given that you have weighed in on much more complicated physics problems, one might expect you could solve a physics 101 problem At the top of the travel the KE is zero and PE is mgH, where H is the top of the travel. The sum remains constant, so KE = mg(H-h) at all points (this assumes g is a constant) KE = p^2/2m so the momentum will be sqrt(2m^2g(H-h)) The details of the collision aren't given; this solution doesn't apply to the impact itself and assumes a point particle (again, details are not given)

But you claim "the linear-fresnel lenses will greatly improve efficiency." So which is it? Is the efficiency greatly improved, or does it not matter much? You need to explain why this is so. I will note that not of these claims are quantified, nor is any direct justification given for them. Just hand-waving.

pions are bosons (they are spin 0)

They are the same thing. It's not emergent, as such.

Also the Cherenkov radiation detectors as mentioned in your other thread. Ad, as with that thread, can you point to what you want to discuss here?

From what I've read, "emergent" indicates a behavior that is seen at some larger scale but is not seen at a smaller scale with the constituent entities. Gravity would not qualify. As far as we know, even a small mass exerts gravity, even if we ignore it.

It's not the quantity, it's the scope. Which is about prediction, and still includes making and using models, which is the salient point. As I said, this is a matter of how you use your model, rathe than being in a new category exclusive of making and testing models. If I suggested that I "limit(ed) (my) definition of Science to analysis and only to analysis of what is" that was not my intent.

Climate science is constructing models in order to see the behavior of nature under those conditions. I was taking your objection to men that there were things that did not include models and testing, not the scope of the models. Yes, science makes predictions of things that could happen under some conditions. I consider that to be part of modeling the universe. We even model behaviors that we have not yet observed, to see if we've missed something.

Do you have some examples of these efforts?

Perhaps it's more that entropy defies an easy distillation into a sound bite. To say that scientists don't understand it is true in the same sense that we still have more to discover, as with all science, but not so much in the sense that we have no understanding of it. Feynman had a good quote about this difficulty, when someone asked about magnets in an interview I really can’t do a good job, any job, of explaining magnetic force in terms of something else you’re more familiar with, because I don’t understand it in terms of anything else you’re more familiar with. IOW, there are some situations in physics where you need to learn some physics in order to develop an understanding of a concept.

! Moderator Note Because it's cheating, and also advertising is against our rules. But mainly because it's cheating. And so you get banned, because you do the bidding of cheaters.

It split when we started testing ideas and making more detailed predictions. You can test the notion that heavier things fall faster than lighter ones, but nobody bothered to see if Aristotle's philosophical idea held up for almost 2000 years until Galileo did it. Ditto for crystal spheres and orbits. We finally discarded that notion because elliptical orbits worked better (simpler model) and made more sense

iNow's quote and my reply were about science, not perception. And, as I said, there *is* more but it's mostly the details of how you go about building and testing your models.

But those are primarily details of how you go about building and testing your models.