Bufofrog

Most of the people I associate with are believers and they take my advice (not about religion obviously). You would have to be pretty foolish to discount every piece of advice from someone because they are of a different faith or faithless. I knew a man who was religious, believed in aliens and all manner of woo-woo stuff. He was very reasonable and intelligent about the rest of the world. I found his advice on life (from his own experiences) to be rather enlightening. [shrug]

Of course no one is listening to you. You say you have something great but you give no explanation as to what this great thing is. Why should anyone believe you?

Aliens from another universe created an AI and this AI created our universe and everything in it. My flight of fancy has exactly the same amount of evidence as your conjecture. My point is, in a scientific discussion bringing in the supernatural is nugatory. PS: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to use the word nugatory.

I do not think that is a big question in physics.

So basically if there was some way to advance technology way beyond what is currently possible we could have a fusion reactor? Can't argue with that. Hollow Earth? Uh, what?

If in the future if a person could be dead for awhile and then could be brought back to life then there is a slight possibility it could happen. Doesn't seem likely at all.

Are you talking about the President of the United States? Is that why he believes Putin over the US intelligence services? Hmmm, you may have a point!

Looks right to me.

Weight is the force of gravity. The normal force is what keeps you from sinking to the center of the earth.

So the title "Is Born's rule verified", should have been, "I think QM is wrong". I guess that is why you are not acknowledging the answer to your question - your mind is already made up. Got it!

That is not accurate. Using hydraulic pistons to increase the force is completely in line with Newtonian physics. The work done by the 2 pistons will be equal. F1D1 = F2D2 The smaller piston will have a lower force but has a longer distance traveled that the larger piston.

My suggestion is that you go to school obtain a PhD in neuroscience, a PhD in electrical engineering and a PhD in computer programming. i would also suspect that this endeavor would require at a minimum your entire life to accomplish. An alternative is to hire people with these degrees and create a team to work on this. The number of technological hurdles to accomplishing something like this is huge. If you manage to make this I would like to try it, though I am fairly certain I will be deader than hell before anything like this is made.

That will work just fine there is no violation of the laws of conservation in that scenario.

I do not think so. It all gets very murky when identifying a different subspecies or species. As 2 separated populations of a single species evolve towards different species there is no digital point at which we can say the 2 populations are separate species, it is instead a smooth transition and so it is very difficult to say with any clarity at which exact point along this smooth transition that the dividing line between species occurs.

As studiot said a heat pump could do that, I do not think that is what you are asking though. I mean you could correctly say that the energy used to make a solar cell is less than the energy that the solar cell can collect over the lifetime of the cell. In the case of the heat pump or the solar cell the 'excess' energy is from a source separate from the device (hope that makes some sense). It seems like you are asking, is it possible to make a device who's energy output is greater than the input. Along the lines of having an electric motor that turns a generator that supplies energy to run the motor. This is not possible, it is a violation of the conservation of energy. Like I said before this should be obvious because both the motor and the generator would have to be at least 100% efficient, and friction alone will prevent that from being possible.

No that is not possible. The motor would have to be more than 100% efficient, which is nonsensical.

I see what you are saying now, I believe. So the bottom line to what you are saying is that the rotating wheels have a higher mass on the side away from the center of the apparatus than the side of the wheel closer to the center of the apparatus. So there would be more momentum on the outward side of the wheel in the up direction than the momentum in the inward side of the wheel in the down direction. Is that what you are saying?

I still do not see why this would result in a net force in the upwards direction. Could you sketch out a force diagram showing how this setup would result in an net upward force?

Because it is not water?

Evoking magic to bolster your idea is generally not helpful in proving your point.

I was born, I reproduced and all I have left to do is die - at that point mission accomplished!

It is very difficult to get the reactions started because the aluminum will have an oxide layer that will prevent the mercury from coming contact with the aluminum metal. NaOH is good for removing oxide from aluminum (as I recall). This is not a very safe experiment to do with kids in a home setting.

I have never seen an article on this, other than the one you quoted a few months ago. No textbooks will need to be rewritten, this is a known condition that is extremely rare , as you have been told many times.

I stopped reading at this point because it can't be done. Actually, that was a nice try but your analysis is based on a faulty assumption as swansont pointed out. For a rotating wheel of 10 m in diameter at a speed of 2/3 c, the wheel would need to spin at about 400,000,000 rpm. I think to keep the wheel from flying apart it would need be made from Doesntexistium.

You have got answers. You keep seeing this because you keep seeking it out. Your intense fascination with this does indeed seem a bit unhinged.