swansont

That's a poor argument, as it rests upon the fact that paper has poor structural integrity; you tend to not make piston systems out of paper, because you want/need the system to be rigid. If you had a rigid, non-permeable cup, you could evacuate the region around the sides and bottom, and the water isn't going to notice.

You had been talking about a piston, which would be exposed to atmosphere on one side, so it's ~132 lbs. (and an additional 50 lbs would not be insignificant) If you think 6 sides are exposed, you'd have to wonder how the water maintains its cubic shape before it freezes, under atmospheric pressure.

Yes. Time isn't an object or substance, or anything that has momentum or energy. It doesn't travel a physical path.

How so? 14.7 psi x 9 si = 132.3 lbs

It's a continual process, and some of the effects have many layers of Feynman diagrams, with multiple loop structures even at the first layers (they tend to get much more complex as you go to more loops), so I don't think you can narrow it down to just the recombination. The whole process is responsible for the contribution, AFAIK. The application of conservation laws at the nodes is bookkeeping. Plus, I don't know that there would be any way to test this hypothesis

As long as you can avoid collisions, which is difficult. The mean free path of air molecules at room temperature is of order 100 nm. And escape velocity is << c

Light bending around a massive object is predicted by the theory, as is the frequency shift of light as it climbs up or drops down a gravitational well. It doesn't have to "consider" EM, since the effects are, in a sense, orthogonal. i.e. the nature of the interaction doesn't matter. For E=mc^2, the mass of a system decreases when its energy is reduced, regardless of whether the interaction is electromagnetic or nuclear. Much like how F=ma doesn't have to specify what kind of force is involved.

I think the problem here is the definition of "exist" which was not provided. The explanation of the Casimir effect that invokes virtual particles uses Feynman diagrams In both of these cases, the answer is clearer if the question were "do virtual particles have a measurable effect" because in both cases, they obviously do, and for physics, that's enough.

SFN defines it a particular way. Then let’s see the model and the support.

Any non-mainstream proposal is speculation here. And someone with your claimed background should know what science means by “a theory”

“Circumstances” that have an impact that we can model and test. As with other “circumstances” that occur in other parts of physics (e.g. symmetries that give rise to conservation laws, circumstances of a lack of acceleration of a frame that gives rise to Newton’s laws, etc.) Relativity doesn’t care. We’ve tested it on macro “circumstances” and it keeps passing the tests.

No. And scientists are not engineers. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes. Not data. The best you can do here is confirm that a scientific background doesn’t prevent you from getting rich. Science background. But not work as scientists, as CharonY notes.

Not technical enough. How much uranium is there in granite, and how much energy would be released in the decays? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-238 The decays of the long-lived isotopes at the top of the chain release energy at a rate of 3 microwatts per mole of U-238 (which is much more than you would likely have) from the 6.7 MeV released. The rest of the chain might release 3 or 4 times that amount, so perhaps you have 20 microwatts per mole. In short, no, this isn’t an energy source. piezo

Shape and size are not phase, and speculation is not an appropriate response

! Moderator Note Posting videos alone is against the rules. Please review rule 2.7 https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/

As joigus has already said, there is no such thing as classical entanglement. It is an inherently quantum effect.

Which would have to happen on each detection. With none if these photons diffracting into different orders and only one of the photons being detected. Thousands of times.

Why? Is this based on any physics? The detection rate was such that the expected photon occupancy would have been significantly less than 1

No, not really. The experiment I recall (IIRC the first to claim single-photon) attenuated the light well past the point where you’d expect multiple photons, and multiple photons would have the possibility of multiple detections if they diffracted into different orders, so this could be checked. Plus the possibility of using a detection method that would have an amplitude proportional to the photon number. So care is required in setting up the experiment but not something I’d call “very difficult”

! Moderator Note No, that’s not what the thread is about, so this is a hijack. Speculations belong in the speculations forum and need to be supported. Opinions are not speculation

Nobody said it was. Strange was pretty specific. But this is all off-topic.

We’re in this thread, not that one. I made my comment earlier today, so a thread locked 9 months ago cannot be an issue. You need to reread the modnotes and perhaps hone your comprehension skills. So you have re-opened a closed thread, and also wish to use speculation to support your idea?

? You’re answering now. You haven’t been locked out. There was no mention of Stirling engines or coolers in this thread before this, so I don’t know how this pertains to the thread. If you think your proposal isn’t slow and inefficient, you should be able to make your case without bringing up your closed thread. (And no, that’s not an accurate summary of why the thread was closed. The subject matter had nothing to do with it)

I think a device that would work as slowly and inefficiently as this is going to be safe

! Moderator Note And our rules prohibit making threads to advertise sites. You need to post the information here