swansont

! Moderator Note Note that the OP has been banned as a sockpuppet of a previously banned member, but feel free to continue discussing. Just without their participation

OneWorldOneNumber banned as a sockpuppet of CuriosOne

“energy level” has a certain implication about quantized energy of a bound system. Casimir measures an effect from the lack of cavity states at certain wavelengths; i.e. the energy states are of the cavity, and the force (or pressure) is there because states are missing. Virtual particles are not constrained to behave the same was as real particles. A virtual photon can have any energy - a continuum. The price of having a large energy is a short existence, because of the uncertainty principle

Counterpoint: no, it isn’t. The rules of the site require you to provide evidence and/or a model for this. A bald assertion is insufficient

What energy levels? You haven’t shown that this an actual phenomenon.

Not a conspiracy. Just enforcement of the rules. If you post crap that e.g. hijacks a thread, or attacks someone, we may hide it.

But you have to be on Parler, which has 15 million subscribers vs 330 million for twitter. So that’s at least 315 million people not being reached.

Right, but that’s essentially changing the programming after the situation has come up, whether that upgrade is built-in, or an external input. The first time, you have an accident, and perhaps a few times after, until you have enough information to deal with the set of circumstances. It won’t properly deal with it the first time.

New physics doesn’t break physics. And if these oddballs are hypothetical, it sounds like some physicists are already working on the new physics. Otherwise nobody would be able to describe what they might be like.

I would think it would approximately double. I expect the phosphor would deplete faster as well, so perhaps it’s a matter of matching that with the decay of the tritium. Having one last much longer than the other isn’t an improvement in length-of-life performance, which is often a consideration for batteries. Just being brighter with the same size is a niche improvement - more current or voltage. But you can get that with multiple batteries.

Programming won’t be able to respond to a situation unanticipated by the programmers. The question is whether the programming can cover enough of the situations encountered by driving, and you’re right -we aren’t there yet.

I think everyone has issues they respond to emotionally rather than logically.

Doesn't a wormhole have curvature throughout its extent? It would seem odd to me if it didn't (but this isn't in my wheelhouse, so I could be mistaken)

Approximately, I would think. (Once you have curvature I think you have to get infinitely far away to have flat spacetime, but you can say it's "flat enough" at some point where the time dilation between two points is negligible.) Like being far from a star and then passing by it, you would go from flat to curved to flat, as a first-order approximation. I think you would have to know the details of what curvature the wormhole introduces as others have suggested or implied.

Addressed here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124871-helicopter-performance-split-from-get-ready-for-the-landing-of-perseverance/?tab=comments#comment-1174594

And I am asking you, once again, for evidence of this, because you have not provided any. For this, or your other fanciful claims.

But curvature means that your location has a time dilation effect, which aren't described by SR. SR assumes a locally flat spacetime, which you don't seem to have here.

Here's a quick writeup of the performance of the Mars helicopter https://www.wired.com/story/the-physics-of-nasas-new-mars-helicopter/ and a more general treatment of helicopter (in the context of a human-powered device) https://www.wired.com/2012/06/how-hard-is-the-human-powered-helicopter/ You can see the thrust depends on Av^2, where A is the rotor area and v is the speed of the air you push down. So you can get more thrust by increasing the area of your blades or having them move faster, but the first adds to the weight and the second requires more power - so you either need bigger batteries, which adds weight, or you reduce the flight time.

We were expecting this, too. So far you've spouted mostly nonsense, and unsupported nonsense at that. If that doesn't change soon (i.e. you need to provide support for claims) then you will find that you don't have a platform for any discussion at all here. For example: you claimed "In 1973 by law, no school receiving Federal Tax Breaks or grant money could teach the scientific method that demanded you demonstrate your hypothesis." and I asked for a pointer to the actual law. Where is it? What is the federal statute that says this? Or are you making it up?

Gammas emitted inside a black hole would not escape. They would have to be emitted from outside.

I asked you first, and you're the one making a non-mainstream claim, so it's up to you to support it. My position, and the one that aligns with mainstream physics, is that it's OK to use approximations when it doesn't affect the answer*. However, by asking this, you are tacitly asserting that the approximation of g is somehow responsible here, even though gravitational potential depends explicitly on r. And yet somehow it would no longer depend on r if the gravitational acceleration were constant. * and which you are doing in equations (2) and (3) even though the motion is relativistic and these approximations fail

! Moderator Note Threads merged

But if you do have a car, it's likely to be gasoline, rather than electric, because it has a lower up-front cost. Also likely to be older and pollute more, because you can't afford to buy a new one very often or maintain the one you have very well. As I and others have said, money gives you options. It may be that green solutions will be cheaper and widely available some day, but we aren't there yet. Right now they are typically either more expensive, or (if cheaper) have limited availability.

It's ironic that you are championing the scientific method, and yet you are asserting claims without backing it up with evidence. (and no, electricity is not "exactly, no difference" like pressure) As I said earlier about neutrons, this is a discussion for speculations and is off-topic here. Post it there, and people will happily dismantle it as nonsense. And, as I said, the direction of the force is simply a matter of circular motion. No fantastic details of "alternative" science is necessary. It's vector math, nothing more. For an object to move in a circle at constant speed it must experience a force towards the center. Thus the force the sun exerts on the earth is directed toward the sun. That's defined as attraction, not repulsion.

You were talking about open debate, where everybody should be using reason and logic, and presenting evidence. The conspiracy theorist will not have anything to say that complies. But I was talking about actually convincing them they are wrong. Facts will not sway them, because they deny the validity of the facts; it's all part of the conspiracy. And have they found such pathways? The title and OP suggested either politics or support, rather than the lounge, where it was improperly posted. I chose support because we are part of the group that "censors" conspiracy discussion (by locking threads when evidence is absent) and these discussions often go in that direction. This one hasn't, mostly.