swansont

! Moderator Note Sorry. We don't dispense medical advice here, other than to say you should consult a medical professional.

Yes. You gave the moment of inertia in your first post. It has both values in it, and they will both show up in the answer. Is the problem in deriving the moment of inertia?

That's not the calculation he's doing, but I'm not sure what the objection is. 9 combinations is what he looks at. There is no rotation of the whole system 180 degrees — that's not the problem he's solving. I don't see where you get 18/36 instead of 4/9. You still haven't explained that.

Being a black hole does not affect the gravitational pull of an object of the same mass, so it's rather easy to see, IMO, ways in which this would not matter at all.

! Moderator Note Was it a post moved by a resident expert or moderator for being overly argumentative?

Please explain how you calculate your probability. You had an error earlier which was pointed out to you, and you never acknowledged it. Not this time.

Which radius is the one that you want to use to convert rotational speed into linear speed? (I.e. what part of the wheel is touching the surface, so that a revolution can tell you the distance traveled?) For the moment of inertia substitution, both radii will show up.

How do you normally find the average of a continuous function?

! Moderator Note We already have a discussion on this topic. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92700-can-something-come-from-nothing-yes-or-no/

Right. The people (at national standards labs) who determine the actual frequency have to estimate the effect that the non-zero temperature has on the atoms, both for the atoms themselves and the blackbody radiation from the surroundings. (As well as electric and magnetic fields, gravitational potential, and other effects)

Do you want to find the average speed, or the average of the square of the speed, in order to find the energy?

Not zero. This articles has one measurement at 8 femtoseconds http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/29/science/smile-electron-fast-camera-captures-action-around-atom.html

Then you should be able to work through this. What principle do you apply to this sort of problem?

! Moderator Note Your keen common sense should direct you to follow the rules of the forum. That is, you respond with mainstream science rather than your own pet theories. The only place to discuss personal theories is in their own thread in speculations. You are not being held to a higher standard than anyone else is. ! Moderator Note The above applies to you, too. If you have some alternate explanation to explore, please do it in speculations.

This is homework help, not the "do the homework for you" section. How would you normally approach solving an object on an inclined plane problem?

That particular test may not have been done; it's a thought experiment. Thousands of experiments have been done that show the general relationships are correct. You can do some of them yourself if you have some basic equipment or you take the right physics class. Personally I'm not a fan of the explanation you keep citing. The video in http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87347-why-hidden-variables-dont-work/ does a much better job explaining Bell inequalities and entanglement.

! Moderator Note Moved to physics/relativity

In a way it is a competing school of thought. Zero motion is based in classical physics, while zero-point in quantum. People citing zero motion are likely looking at classical thermodynamics.

What work have you done so far?

That's the introductory explanation, yes.

I don't think you will get validation, because of there was some effect that happened only in one interpretation, we wouldn't have multiple interpretations.

When you detect the electron.

And localized. Even though a wave can have a large extent, an interaction can take place in a much smaller space.

The electrons are further from the protons than the protons are from each other. The possibility of confinement by external charges aside (Earnshaw's theorem may apply here), a quantitative look at the electrostatics immediately dismisses this notion. It's not an allowed state in QM. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle bears this out — if we knew the electron was near the proton, it's uncertainty in momentum tells us it couldn't stay there. Bottom line is the electron is a wave. Simply looking at this classically won't work.

Why?