swansont

A cyclone requires an energy input. It’s not something that just happens with a ”kick start”

You’re claiming no curvature despite the energy not being zero.

Cooling efficiency is not the same measurement. When you say that heating is (nearly) 100% efficient, that’s saying all of the energy is turned into heat. 100 J of electricity is turned into 100J of thermal. (temp goes up) Cooling efficiency is really the coefficient of performance; it’s about moving stuff with energy around. You can remove, say, 250J of heat from space with 100J of input, but you haven’t destroyed any energy - the rejected heat from the system is larger. 250J is removed from the space (temp goes down) but that and the 100J of electricity is deposited elsewhere (350J total) - wherever your thermal reservoir is. If you compare apples to apples, the COP of a heat pump is always bigger for heating than cooling, given the same input of heat and work https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance

A related experiment has been done. Antimatter is attracted, not repulsed, by gravity from normal matter. “antihydrogen atoms, released from magnetic confinement in the ALPHA-g apparatus, behave in a way consistent with gravitational attraction to the Earth. Repulsive ‘antigravity’ is ruled out in this case.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06527-1 You aren’t going to be able to measure gravitational effects between tiny amounts of matter and antimatter (i.e. particles or atoms)

It’s a matter of rate, not prevention. k = Ae^(-Ea/RT) Low temperatures inhibit overcoming the activation energy Also if the molecule tended to dissociate owing to a high temperature, it wouldn’t be around very long.

Yes, it does. The gravity (i.e. curvature) in some area depends on the mass nearby, but it doesn’t tell you the distribution of that mass. It could be a planet of some size, or a smaller planet with a higher density. Further, if that mass is rotating, that has an effect.

Meaning you want to see it in real-time, which is also an unreasonable request. There are areas of science that have elements which rely on historical observation (e.g. astronomy, geology) rather than experiments in a lab. We know* abiogenesis happened. We know* the solar system formed, and each of the planets. *have evidence, combined with the best science we can apply So the fact that we can observe various processes that are elements of geology or star formation, that’s fine, but observing biological elements is not? (see e.g. the Urey-Miller experiment, which formed amino acids from simpler compounds) If a critical reaction has a low probability, you might need time to compensate for having a limited population of reactants. (p-p fusion in the sun, as an analogy, takes on average about a billion years. But that’s overcome by having many orders of magnitude more than Avogadros number of protons.) Since we only know that it happened but not the specific pathway, we don’t know what that potential bottleneck might be

! Moderator Note No, that’s not how it works here. You post it here That’s not in accordance with mainstream physics. You can’t discuss a house-of-cards hypothesis. You need to establish the base before moving on. Photons and neutrinos are quite different items. And you have other dubious claims you have to address before moving on.

The direct evidence is that life exists, and previously it didn’t. Direct observation is a canard trotted out by people who aren’t familiar with science. Tip: don’t ever study modern physics if you expect this. You will be very disappointed.

! Moderator Note Any discussion of consciousness requires a definition, because claiming a tree is conscious likely means that definition is so watered-down as to be almost meaningless. And posting videos without supporting information is not within the rules. If you can’t give us a summary there’s no confidence you’ll be able to engage in discussion of the subject.

Given his penchant for ignoring the rules, he probably would have been

That’s a noticeably different response. So it’s not that the government doesn’t “do stuff” because that’s what governments generally do. It’s about government ownership, i.e the economic side of communism or socialism. (and while “commies” don’t want to take the toothbrush, it’s not that person’s toothbrush. It’s community property, not personal property)

! Moderator Note Quantum theory does not address this (not directly, at least) Please try and stay on-topic

How can the means of production be owned by the state, without the government “doing stuff”?

You can only feel a force when standing because the earth is pushing up on you. In General Relativity, freefall is inertial motion, and being stationary requires an acceleration.

There’s some validity to it, but the reason the US funds e.g. Brookhaven is that it’s a lab in the US, as opposed to e.g. CERN (Europe) or TRIUMF or SNO (Canada) or Super-Kamiokande (Japan) You can also discuss the breakdown of funding for particle physics vs other areas of physics, but I think there’s no right answer, only wrong ones (which depends on your favorite area of physics) You’re comparing philosophy and science, which are not competing disciplines. How many fundamental particles has philosophy discovered? Physics has success in theories that are confirmed and experiments that work. And particle physics is not representative of all physics, despite your extrapolation.

! Moderator Note You already have an account and have opened a thread on this topic

! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 says, in part, “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. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum.”

So did he get the things done, or was it the people working for him?

Maybe you should make your own sound argument based on established (i.e. confirmed) science and evidence.

What country are you talking about here? Certainly not the US, which does not have such a policy for immigration.

! Moderator Note You might want to lose the attitude going forward.

Flow rate varies as diameter^3 and pressure varies as diameter^2 (assuming a given fan speed and all other variables the same) But that means the power varies as D^5, so there’s a tradeoff if you are limited by power. https://blog.fluidflowinfo.com/fan-performance-and-fan-laws/ (also given is variation with fan speed, so you can see how much you’d need to increase that if you decrease diameter)