swansont

I like to point out that the effect of the moon's pull on pendulum clocks has been measured. Small effect, of course, but it's there.

We are discussing physics, but I mean the laws of science are mathematical relations, or can be presented as such. I don't think anyone would be so confused as to think we're talking about the legal system.

I though "beauty" was abandoned long ago in favor of "bottom" (along with "truth" as an alternative to "top")

! Moderator Note You can present an idea and defend it, but what you can't do is assert something and call everyone idiots who show flaws in your idea. I think you have mistaken us for the "Credulous of Crackpottery" discussion forum. That's not us. We require models and evidence for non-mainstream proposals. Since you have decided not to engage in a constructive manner, you've declared you're done, I will close this. Don't bring it up again, in any form.

It's based on the math analysis of data. You do a bunch of measurements where you change one variable (e.g. temperature) and then measure the effect on the one you measure, e.g. pressure. In this example, you know V is fixed, because you're using a rigid apparatus. You look at the graph. You can fit a curve/line to the data (studiot gave the equation you would use for fitting a straight line)

You've simplified it to the point that it's wrong. And what "frills" are there? Spin is conserved. If you have two particles stemming from a spin-0 state, one will be spin-up, the other spin-down. Making up some story about ping-pong seems far more convoluted. I had given a spin example, and you responded with a polarization diagram, as if you did not know the difference. It happens without intervention by us, so, sure. I don't see where I've said anything that would lead you to such a conclusion. Efficiency of entanglement in spontaneous parametric downconversion is low, but photons are easy to make https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion"The conversion efficiency of SPDC is typically very low, with the highest efficiency obtained on the order of 4 pairs per 10^6 incoming photons for PPLN in waveguides" and then you can only have entangled photons if they come from the overlap region of the two cones. So, it's not particularly easy, from a numbers standpoint. Fortunately you're going to have of order 10^15 photons per mW of visible photons. Entanglement is not necessarily nonlocal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality#Entanglement_and_nonlocality Saying "We don't know" is preferable to making stuff up. But we know this is wrong, since the ping-pong ball has to travel at infinite speed. Your example is unphysical. It assumes information is traveling, and you have no basis for that assumption.

There are the laws of thermodynamics Laws, of course, are mathematical relations. The laws give guidance on the behavior of energy, temperature (which is related to energy) and entropy. There are other laws within thermodynamics which give relationships of these and additional variables that we encounter in thermodynamics, such as pressure and volume.

You're creating a false dichotomy. ""If thermodynamics is not an original force of the universe" means it could be, or not be an original force. But you're saying if it isn't, then it's still a force, created by the four forces. Either way, the statement is declaring that it's a force. And it's not. Let's simplify: If Bob did not kill Alice, then Bob killed Charlie" Same format, just with substitutions. The statement is saying Bob killed somebody. Could be Alice, could be Charlie.

Your clarity is not as good as you think it is. You gave a binary case. If it wasn't one, then it's the other (either it was original, or it arose from the four). In any event, your statement says it's a force

This is polarization entanglement, not spin entanglement. But the polarization states have to "add" to some value (in this case, if one is H, then the other one is V)

"If thermodynamics is not an original force of the universe, then it is a force created by the four forces" Silly me for thinking you were calling it a force, I guess.

I don't see how that explanation is unavailable to us in a quantum example, like having two spin-1/2 particles coming from a spin-zero condition, so you know one is spin-up and the other is spin-down. There is no evidence that there is information transferred, and it's been pointed out that the state information is available instantaneously. i.e. your ping-pong ball has to travel at infinite speed. Is an analogy that violates the laws of physics a good analogy?

The objection is that the earth does not need to support biological life. Many planets most likely do not support life (and if they do, then that blows the argument that you must have a certain composition out of the water, so to speak). "Need" is not the proper way to address this; it anthropomorphizes the dynamic and that's not warranted. It's also a small detail in a larger discussion, but unfortunately the OP introduced this awkward phrasing.

Thermodynamics isn't a force A lot of thermodynamics relationships involve energy, because there are systems where you either know energy is conserved, or can track the energy entering and leaving the system. That's true, but not particularly relevant. Physics boils down to what problems you can solve, and since energy is a conserved quantity, that's one of the useful quantities to track.

You can't validly use Bell's theorem where it doesn't apply. You have described a classical system, not a quantum one, and Bell only applies to quantum systems. Again: where's the science? What's the point of doing this (i.e. how will it apply to actual science being done?)

If we eliminate that exception, we can certainly adopt his "I only tip for exceptional service" attitude

Did a dog write this?

You talking to me? yes, I have done this. When I raise myself up on my toes, the reading on my scale increases above my weight by a few pounds. If I am settling back down, it decreases below my weight. That's consistent with a physics analysis. In order to have a +y acceleration, there must be a force greater than the weight acting on the person. Consequently, the person must be exerting a force greater than the weight on the scale. AFAIK my scale is basically a spring scale - just a pad with some internal components. I can only conclude that your scale has some interesting goings-on for your reading to go down, but then, we also know a pendulum doesn't work properly when accelerating, so a cantilever might be similarly perturbed. It might be fun to analyze why this happens. The concept is like the scale reading on an elevator https://lhsblogs.typepad.com/files/apparent-weight.pdf

If the only thing that's either/or is whether you're playing or not, that's not like entanglement. One player is always in the act receiving the shot, the other is making or has made the shot. That would be analogous to entanglement. If you identify which player is doing one act, then you know the other player is performing the other act. So what? Where's the science?

How does your hypothesis match up with the evidence? There is historical data that tells us the CO2 and O2 levels in the past. Also, the levels varied before humans were on the planet; we've really only had the ability to make a significant change in very recent times. Go back ~40 million years and CO2 levels were twice what they are today. But no humans.

So you agree that your claim "My hypothesis is that a human body can lift itself by a force far less than its weight" is wrong?

In the context of Area54's and my comments, one might say "biological life on the planet needs a certain atmospheric warmth and make up"

There are also numbers for hospitalization and deaths, in addition to the asymptomatic cases. 100% effectiveness is pretty good, IMO. https://www.wfla.com/community/health/coronavirus/astrazeneca-vaccine-shows-100-effectiveness-preventing-covid-hospitalization-death-in-us-study/ Although AstraZeneca’s vaccine has been authorized in more than 50 countries, it has not yet been given the green light in the U.S. The U.S. study comprised more than 30,000 volunteers, of whom two-thirds were given the vaccine while the rest got dummy shots. In a statement, AstraZeneca said its COVID-19 vaccine had a 79% efficacy rate at preventing symptomatic COVID and was 100% effective in stopping severe disease and hospitalization. Investigators said the vaccine was effective across all ages, including older people — which previous studies in other countries had failed to establish.

It's a bad one, then. Entanglement means you can't treat particles as separate, independent entities. If you measure one particle, you instantly know that state of its entangled partner, because they can be treated as a single entity. There's no reason for there to be a delay.

That would be one of the “many factors” I mentioned. Not that there are no generators, as such, but the logistics of fueling them and difficulty in operating them have an impact.