swansont

OK, then. You are not in compliance with our guidelines for posting here.

Odds are you are going to have to major in physics, or get a Phd (which you might be able to do with a non-physics major). An undergraduate degree generally does not distinguish between theory and experiment, at least in the US. Math is an integral part of physics. There are several math courses that will be required for even a minor in physics.

Particles of light are massless, but they are not the only massless particles. Gluons are, and gravitons are theorized to be. Edit: xpost with Strange

"all by itself" is a phrase that completely omits the details, and the science is all about looking at these details. "The earth was not destroyed" is a strawman. Nobody is claiming the earth will be destroyed. The claim is that it will become less habitable for many species, including humans Where is this "all kinds of hard data"? The implication here is that it is model-free, and that recent warming has no data. Both of those implications are flat-out wrong. Got this model-free data that shows natural warming? Link to it! I want to see how it shows natural warming without models. ALL of science runs on consensus. Consensus based on data and models. Pet rocks being pets isn't a particularly scientific issue. So that's a non-sequitur. The hard data, interpreted through models, shows that there was an ice age and subsequent warming. It does not show the cause, unless you interpret data through even more models. Science continually re-interprets data based on new understanding (and we have HARD DATA that shows that it has done so). So this is all bollocks. How much are soapboxes running these days? Or have you just recycled one from the trash, like your arguments?

You have to compare this to the QM measurement. But your statement is wrong: P(A,B) = 1 does not derive from the matching. It is a statement about the distribution of the coins. YOU are saying that e.g. gold coins are shiny, and copper ones are dull. That is not an assumption inherent to the experiment. It's a condition YOU have placed on it. If the properties are arbitrarily decided, then P(A,B) = 1/2 What the paper says is that no matter what correlation you have between those properties, the sum of those 3 properties is not smaller than 1. But if you treat this as a QM system, the sum of those probabilities will be < 1

Theory eventually has to match observation to be accepted. What predictions do you make that can be evaluated?

! Moderator Note Sorcerer's speculation on dark energy moved http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92833-dark-energy/

It's the opposite of melting, really, if it turns liquid when you remove the heat source. But as hypervalent_iodine says, the process of solidification releases energy, so what you describe isn't going to happen.

You still need the big rocket if you're going beyond LEO, and I thought that was the point of this exercise. You aren't going to send a Falcon 9 to Mars. Kerosene freezes at -40 ºC. Not the best thing to leave out in some orbiting fuel depot. Also, how much fuel will you waste getting into the same orbit and docking with the depot? The most straightforward way I can think of to make this useful is to have an entire stage of a rocket waiting in orbit, so you can dock with it and fire its engines. Which means you need a rocket capable of lifting that stage into orbit.

What kind of fuel? Volatile things tend to degrade fairly readily. Why would two smaller rockets be better than one big one?

No, absolutely not. I am encouraging you to learn physics. How can that be construed as thinking advanced concepts are only for the elite? What is does men, however, is there is no way you are going to be able to construct a working model of an advanced concept if you don't understand the basics, much like you would not be able to drive a racing car if you have never driven before. Kinetic energy in an orbit is not equal to the gravitational potential energy. But again, this is something you should be able to demonstrate yourself rather than have it shown to you, if you have any hope of developing any concepts that are more involved than this. Also, it puts you in no position to critique the advanced science, which you clearly do not understand. ! Moderator Note And, regarding your hypothetical sub-particles, we've been over this before. If you don't have a model, or evidence to present, or a way to test your hypothesis, then don't broach the topic. You've been told this too many times for you to plead ignorance or feign surprise at this warning.

Seems to me that unwanted heat loss, then, is for a real system, and the equations are for an ideal system. If the losses are small, then you can use the equations. If not, you need to make additions to the model.

You can't observe it as it changes, though. Not in quantum systems. Einstein assumed a non-interacting gas, meaning the particles don't interact with each other. Interactions between them give rise to more complicated behaviors. There is no assumption that you can't observe the system.

I don't recall any situations of spin being associated with KE. Anyway, there are particles or systems with integer spin, so you could have zero spin. The example timo gave of the harmonic oscillator is derived with a spinless particle — that's not the source of the zero point energy.

Gravitational potential energy is only dependent on position. Another introductory physics concept you would know if you learned basic physics. Without which you will never understand these advanced concepts

spin or orbital angular momentum, depending on the specifics of the interaction

where would the heat go, where it would not be a conserved quantity?

To which predictions are you referring?

No, that's not what the link says. The heading is micropascals (the wikipedia page I read said nano, but no matter. It's still tiny) micro is 10^-6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind "The wind exerts a pressure at 1 AU typically in the range of 1–6 nPa (1–6×10−9 N/m2), although it can readily vary outside that range." Here's a little science for you. Let's compare this to a human standing. If you have a mass of around 100kg, you exert a force of around a kilonewton. Let's say you have big feet, and we'll use a square meter as your foot area, so we make a conservative estimate. That's a kilopascal you are exerting on the earth - 100 million times larger pressure than the solar wind. When you lift up one foot to walk, you double that pressure. (When your foot lands, it will have an impact even larger) So we should be causing earthquakes every day by walking around, if shock waves in the solar wind can cause them. Prove your point? No. I think this is the "any port in a storm" effect. You see a few key words and think that these articles support your position, but you obviously don't understand the science (including the scale) involved and why they don't.

Stil incredibly vague, and still no evidence that this doesn't occur.

A few nanopascals is "massive"? Atmospheric pressurre is more than 100,000 pascals. Still having trouble seeing where this shock wave that could materially affect the earth is coming from.

There is no gravitational force mentioned in the OP.

I don't recall seeing any examples you've presented of scientific claims that are not being met.

Is there a scientific basis for thinking there are more, if only you go to a higher energy?

If it exists, then you should have no trouble measuring its properties, and our speed as we travel through it.