swansont

! Moderator Note That’s available in textbooks and journal articles. Summaries can be found on the web. Mainstream science is the default position here; nobody is required to reinvent the wheel. However, you own the burden of proof for alternative scenarios. Your posts need to be more than colorful pictures. You need a falsifiable model, capable of making predictions, and evidence that fits with the model.

! Moderator Note I’m not sure which infraction is worse: appealing to conspiracy, linking to other discussion boards as “evidence” or labeling all “footnote” links with the number 1. What I am sure of is this thread is closed.

Better than “time is a flat circle” because I have no idea what that’s supposed mean.

! Moderator Note I was hoping for a rigorous explanation, rather than a superficial hand-wave. Answer Bufofrog’s question (How could you use a scale to measure this alternative weight?) or this is finished.

No, it’s not. Time perception is time perception, not time.

You need to establish the validity of this “equivalent mass” nonsense. Your other speculation is based on this speculation. The rules don’t permit you to bootstrap like this.

! Moderator Note Moved from philosophy (which this isn’t). Note that we are discussing science here, not myth. IOW, it’s why the flood story is contrary to physical law, and/or the real origin of the myth.

! Moderator Note Split because you shouldn’t hijack someone else’s discussion to make proclamations like this

False, and you would need to present evidence and a model if you want to pursue this. Nope. That’s a tautology. Either a particle is stable or it’s not. No insight into physics here. Nope. ! Moderator Note I’m not going to continue; there’s no rigor here. Provide it as required by the rules. Probably best to trim the list of claims to simplify the discussion. Perhaps the bit about nuclei being bound owing to relativistic electrons in them.

I don’t see how that’s a relevant example

You used collapse in reference to a classical wave: (it was clearly identifies as a classical example By MigL) It’s a classical example. Not a wave function.

Motor, or car? The latter is discussed in the link, and as I already summarized. I suspect there’s more friction in a gas engine than in an electric motor, as well. Pistons move, in addition to the axle that both have.

The answer is still no. The 2009 discovery is not what divB=0 excludes, so the realization of the Dirac monopole does not require any change to the laws of physics, seeing as it was predicted by the existing laws of physics. Is this sufficient, or do you need it written out yet again?

This is fiction I think this is something we can all agree on, as gravity and the normal force are two very different things. Again, this is fiction. This does not become true just because you say it. Earlier you mentioned an experiment. Have you done an actual experiment? Or are you just making this up?

You’ve been told a number of times to distinguish between the two different phenomena dubbed monopoles, but this does not follow; you have presented no physics argument leading from the premise to the assertion. This is a science discussion site. We request science discussion.

By experiment, you mean you’ve done this? Which is it? 80 N or 570 N? It won’t read both. Sure it does. You can’t do this without also being supported at some other point, like one foot on the scale and one on the floor. No, this makes no sense.

No, it’s not really like that at all. You might not like the book (my reaction to it was “meh”) but it has literary value and there are themes to discuss in the context of an English class. So your comparison to eating shit is, well, shit.

I think this is irrelevant, since I’m talking about wave functions, not vectors. I don’t know what you mean by space function.

I think it’s used because the inference is that you only have one observer, and that observer is comparing the two clocks. That observer can’t be in both frames, so the notion that clocks tick at 1 second per second in its own frame is true but moot.

I don’t know what you mean by that.

“common” in this case means “incorrect” It’s a shame the article only hints at this. It is common to confuse the HUP with the measurement effect, but they are distinct phenomena. The explanation is wrong. What is being described here is the measurement effect. Heisenberg himself made this mistake, in trying to discern why there would be this uncertainty The uncertainty arises because the wave functions of the associated pair of variables are Fourier transforms of each other. i.e. the wave function in momentum-space is a Fourier transform of the WF in position-space. The uncertainty occurs because of this relation.

“pollution from electricity” and “pollution from electric motors (or vehicles)” are not exactly the same thing. Motors and engines suffer from friction, which release pollutants, as do braking systems.

And? This seems to be an argument against your thesis. Further, running vs walking or jumping vs standing are more an issue of power, rather than force.

Then I’m guessing there’s not a rigorous mapping between them, so “energy not used/wasted on other things, so it’s available to do work” probably suffices

In order to do a calculation there are variables you need to hold constant. Otherwise you'll never have enough information to solve a problem — too many variables. The end states are equilibrium. Sometimes the path you take to get there matters. Other times it doesn't matter. Which free energy? Gibbs or Helmholtz? (again, it's a matter of which variables are held constant, and which change value)