swansont

So much for the ideal gas law, then No, it's as settled as it gets. Relativity works, and relativity has massless photons. Your "theory" needs to predict correct results, and it doesn't. That's the first thing to check. Because it's game over when it doesn't. Just about every college freshman doing a physics interference experiment has debunked your claim.

Fringe size is fringe separation? So is it (1) d/(lambda * pi * D) or is it (2) (d * D * pi)/lambda (this is why you need to write out the equations) Equation 1 has units of 1/distance, so it can't be right It also disagrees with the accepted (and experimentally confirmed) equation, (m * lambda * D)/d, and if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong Your equation doesn't trend properly with slit separation and wavelength. Also, where would the second or third order fringes appear And why would they be there for particles? As I already said, you would need to provide a derivation (physical reasoning) for this equation. But as it's demonstrably wrong, that's really not necessary. No, if it has a wavelength there is some wave behavior Incorrectly predicts.

Up front, perhaps, but what about lifetime costs? And I was talking about energy generation. So in ~20 years when you want to replace solar panels, will solar be cheaper, or more expensive than it is now? Will fossil fuels be cheaper or more expensive? Further more, what will be the incentive to go back to e.g. internal combustion engine vehicles if a robust EV infrastructure is developed in that time? Why would companies resurrect such manufacturing? Already we're seeing the shift to electric vehicles from major automakers. This particular dystopian scenario is purely guesswork. Not seeing the connection with climate change. Subsidies have been getting reduced in the US, AFAIK, and we have no carbon tax. Fossil fuels are still subsidized. It's not clear that a carbon tax would subsidize solar or wind, but it would make the hurdle for fossil fuel even higher

This is fine. You've clarified it. Companies have a limited amount of money on hand, and there is finite capacity to make solar cells. In the US, solar is being rolled out but it's mostly displacing coal plants that are being shuttered, as well as adding new capacity. So it is a matter of when. The US has been adding > 10 GWp of solar PV per year for the last several years. The general trend has been an increase (in 2010-2011 it was about 1 GWp) but solar still only represents <2% of electricity generation. To go faster requires money and solar cell production capacity. Capacity won't expand unless there's a demand. Companies won't shutter production unless they can replace the capacity, and not lose money. Other countries have done better with solar installation, because there is political will to do so.

Then post it here. The rules require it; videos can't be the primary source of information for your proposal (see rule 2.7). I'm sorry - wavelength? I thought we had particles here. Why would you do this calculation? What's the physical justification for it? Which surfaces are these? Shortest and longest distances - can you put this in terms of the slid width and separation? i.e create a proper equation for the location of the fringes?

Doubtful. There is a financial incentive to get away from fossil fuels - "green" energy is cheaper.

What are some of the examples of democrats not being nice?

OK, but that’s different. You said “how much money could've been saved, in the long run, if we had just switched” is a backward-looking statement.

And it’s proportional to the level of offense?

Can you derive the two-slit interference equation from this idea?

Time travel isn’t possible. You couldn’t opt out of 40 year-old nuclear technology for presently available solar. You would have to have used 40 year-old solar. Less efficient and more expensive than today’s. Solar recently achieved grid parity, but until the push to develop it in the last decade or so, there wasn’t much in the way of economy of scale driving the price down

To see if this is a widespread notion.

What is the evidence such small particles exist, and the required absorption can happen? What are the properties of these small particles? Why would these small particles be absorbed at the same rate everywhere? A C-12 atom has 6 each of protons, neutrons and electrons, and a deuteron has one of each. How does nature “know” to have 6x the small particles near a carbon atom vs a deuteron, so they can absorb them at the same rate? What about particles that have no structure? (e.g. electrons)

No, that’s not argument from authority.

That’s basically the opposite of a sail.

They aren’t as bad, though, IMO. Their leaders aren’t calling places sh*thole countries, putting kids in cages, allowing hundreds of thousands of people to die of a preventable disease, sitting on legislation for months that would help people, or trying to deny them healthcare. But heaven help us if someone uses a four-letter-word and calls them out on it. False equivalence. I said nothing of acting like Republicans. That would saying “be meaner, greedier and more callous” Why isn’t the party of the religious right ever called to act more with the Christian ideals they claim to possess? Is there any evidence that this will happen? Who out in pundit-land is calling for this?

Soap does, in fact, kill COVID https://healthmatters.nyp.org/how-does-handwashing-with-soap-kill-the-coronavirus/ and helps remove it from your skin https://www.uchealth.org/today/why-soap-and-water-work-better-than-hand-sanitizer-to-remove-the-coronavirus/ “Soap disrupts the sticky bond between pathogens and your skin, allowing the pathogens to slide right off. Not only are you neutralizing the virus with the soap, but you’re also physically knocking it off your hands,” Pastula said. “Hand sanitizer doesn’t do all of that.”

Why does the left have to nicer? Why is the right being given a pass, especially considering the level of vitriol?

If they will vote against their interests, that suggests to me that these are single-issue voters, so they aren’t going to vote for a democrat. The vitriol is a convenient excuse to point to, but I seriously doubt this is the reason behind their vote. They get mad over a variety of issues, but if you show them that their anger is misplaced (because e.g. the issue has been misrepresented) they aren’t mad at being lied to, and don’t change their vote. >40% of the voters are not going to vote for a democrat. The untapped potential is in people who don’t usually vote. Or can’t, owing to voter suppression. Or whose votes are diluted (as iNow points out) owing to gerrymandering

Where does the solar sail attach? Mass ejection just compounds the problem you are trying to solve. I figure that if you could move the sun, moving the planets would be trivial in comparison. But I don’t see how you move the sun in any way consistent with the problem at hand.

! Moderator Note My comment: rule 2.7 says “Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone.” So just asking us to watch the video does not comply with the rules.

Then, as I said previously break it down into individual steps, because you are introducing multiple hypotheses, each of which needs to be examined. There’s way too much to discuss in a single thread. People are giving you their time and attention. Perhaps you could act like they don’t owe you this, because they don’t. Your proposal is a mish-mash of ideas that can’t be easily analyzed as a whole. It too easily invites distraction. It seems to me, that a failure at any point sinks the whole thing. So discussion of individual steps would be a far better approach.

The problem isn’t getting from one made-up equation to another, it’s tying the equation to something that’s not. Speculations rules require that you back up your conjecture. Citing one speculation to backstop another doesn’t do that.

That’s bad form in physics. F is already Force, such a constant is unnecessary, and you don’t name things after yourself What equation for a photon radius depends on G?

What is F=G/c^2, and where did your equations come from? How would you test them to see if they work?