swansont

You misunderstand. I was explaining why this is a waste of effort. I wasn’t offering to waste more of my time. You should be able to evaluate some basic QM experiments.

Different experiments give different results, owing to wave-particle duality

You can win the lottery, too. But that's not the typical result Presenting the edge cases as typical is not a fair argument. You can have a thousand destitute people plus these three who will be, on average, multi-millionaires.

How is insisting that it's really classical underneath not exactly the same thing?

The same way normal stars form. The interactions are the same. Those are excellent questions. How, indeed?

! Moderator Note Links deleted in violation of rule 2.7 (We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it.)

Yes, it does. If you treat the mass as one system and the chassis as another, they must each have equal and opposite momentum at all times. ! Moderator Note The larger issue here is you can’t ask the question and then give the answer; that’s a violation of our good faith rule (advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed). Your question has been answered, and we’re not going to entertain yet another discussion involving your fanciful notions of Newton’s laws.

No. That’s not what anybody has said, and Newton’s laws say the chassis must move If the internal mass moves, the rest of the system has to move as well, according to Newton’s 3rd law.

It will vibrate along both axes. A conceptual simplification would be to assume everything is massless except this one mass. The chassis moves in a circle around the stationary mass.

The CoM doesn’t move if it starts at rest and there are no external forces.

Not the way it works. Hypotheses are not assumed to be true, and falsifiability is a requirement. You use the best model available. IOW, you use the wave model to explain wave behavior. There is no inconsistency since the models explain different things.

The phrasing of the abstract is that these sources can’t be ruled out, which is quite different from claiming positive evidence that they are anti-stars

How would you test this?

Ah, of course. (I took that as square mile, not mile squared. Stupid brain)

No, there’s no reason to think this is possible with known physics.

Can you show a calculation showing how much energy would be a available?

! Moderator Note Split; please don’t hijack discussions to bring up your own theory

! Moderator Note If you have a scientific model, go ahead

Said to be? Nonsense. What if the area I take is 0.01 miles wide by 100 miles long - does it still have 8 inches of curvature? Rules say you post the info for discussion, as nobody is required to watch a video in order to participate

IDNeon has been banned because, good grief, they wouldn’t leave it alone. Repeated personal attacks, thread hijacking and soapboxing. Over and over again, without much science to dilute the crap.

! Moderator Note Reposting a trashed thread? No I don’t think so.

! Moderator Note Since you can’t or won’t support your claims, you can’t challenge this. In any event, refusal to support claims isn’t how we do things here.

It would mean something if you explained why, instead of just repeating it.

I think Alcoa probably used proper units. Her’s another source. https://agmetalminer.com/2015/11/24/power-costs-the-production-primary-aluminum/ 15 kwh per kg, or 15,000 kwh per ton That gets you to 25.5 TWh for 1.7 million tons

You could only determine this by interacting with the photon, which you don’t, as the scenario is described.