swansont

We get about 1 inquiry a year about why e.g. there is no economics forum. So it's a question of supply and demand.

Exactly. From an inertial view, the point is not stationary, even though it looks that way from the earth. It's a special orbit, meaning there still has to be a force.

That assumes that the forces are equal at that point, but that's not what L1 is. The force at L1 is not zero. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point

'nuf said

In terms of atomic physics the relation to gravity is not vague at all. It's only at the far reaches of GR where this is an issue. It's a little vague where your "it's a little vague" is coming from.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos You may open a new thread if you include the material you wish to discuss in it, but any threads started with just a link to a paper to download will be closed. Also, any non-mainstream thread should be opened in speculations

Photons have no charge, and yet they have an electric field. So this can't be right. Charge is a property of a particle. Elemental bonds perform no work. There is nothing unresolved about this. We can discuss Newtonian gravity, which is a force, and yet no work is done on something moving in a circular orbit. Duration doesn't enter into it. No tricks involved. Just knowing what the definition of work is. Do you? What direction of motion? Electrons are waves. QM has no trajectories for electrons in an atom. Funny that, since the solution for the states in an atom involve the energy of the system, the possible values of which are eigenvalues. Energy conservation is inherent in that.

LaTex tutorial

The main problem here is that "anti-matter travels backwards in time" is not the right phrasing, which has probably been whittled down and reshaped in all of the retellings, much like the "whisper" game. Antimatter traveling forward in time is indistinguishable from matter traveling backward in time. It's represented that way in Feynman diagram.

A photon is not an "electrical entities", and it is not "not dissimilar to lightning". Photons have no charge. There is no current flow with photons. There is no work done in maintaining bonds. "Work" has a specific meaning within physics; the energy of the system is constant, so no work needs to be done. There is absolutely no issue with conservation of energy here. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

"Light source" in a physics context is not restricted to visible light; it just means electromagnetic radiation. Even outside of that, UV and IR are often considered light.

! Moderator Note No, anyone wishing points to be addressed need to raise the points here, as per rule 2.7

But that's the opposite of "Magnifies and increases photons" since you now have half the number of photons. If what you want is more photons, you need downconversion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion And, of course, you haven't increased the energy of the system, because energy is conserved. As I said before, you need amplification, which needs an energy input. But that's not storing photons. The photons don't stay in the material and were never in it in the first place.

No. Photons move at c. They have to, as they are massless. The phrasing in the OP is ... awkward.

I should hope that nobody would bet their life on this, as we know the Bohr model is both incomplete and wrong There is no energy conservation problem. What work are you referring to? Electricity does not flow perpetually within an atom. You appear to be "solving" a nonexistent problem. We have our standards

No, that's not what free speech is. The corollary of this would be that you have no right to be offended by anything I say, and that's nonsense. And you also seem to be taking "disagreement" to be insult/offense. I don't have to be insulted by something to think you are wrong.

No, I don't see how that follows. That's what you write just after all the math has been done, just before the final equation. We want to see this math.

There is no torque, therefore no rotation of the box. The box is filled with liquid, so the surface is not free to move. That's why there have been so many follow-up questions. The setup of the problem and the question do not jibe.

Still waiting on the important math: the derivation of your equations. It will be interesting to see that, plus see how a massive change in premise might affect it. I don't see how that could remain unchanged. Unless the equations were meaningless to begin with.

Evidence? I work with a bunch of people for whom this is not true.

How about establishing that this is in fact true, before proceeding?

Where does position come into play in Einstein's derivation? This is a gas. There is no fixed position. Position is not a good quantum number. It's not being used to describe any of the particles. Energy is.

That would be some local frame of reference. Which, as I have already stated, is not the frame of a photon. You have presented exactly zero physics regarding being in a photon's frame, and yet that's how you lead off the discussion.

This is sidestepping the issue. Most ideas are wrong, and consequently not worth stealing. Fame and/or fortune is not at stake here. What is at stake here is that we require a certain level of science discourse, even in speculations and you are falling short of that threshold. This is not the WAG section, or the 2AM dormitory discussion conjecture section. We spell out what we expect here. That's an exceedingly generous interpretation. Photons do not exist inside of things, and do not escape as was described in the OP.

! Moderator Note Regret this you may. Going violently off-topic in general is a signal that the original discussion is done, and going all the way to 9/11 and the towers conspiracy leaves no doubt that this should be closed. This is a science site, not a conspiracy site, and the illuminati like it that way.