swansont

There can’t be a pattern without the data. If you destroy the data, you have no pattern. But that has nothing to do with the wave function. The wave function collapses as soon as you detect the photon or electron.

If this is the issue, doesn’t it assume you have a right to discriminate? Is that the case? I thought that this was covered in the Human Rights Act of 1998. I would assume you comply with the law. What rights are involved here? Surely violating the law isn’t a right. Simply having laws doesn’t deprive people of rights. If the government has the authority to compel action or punish, it can’t have involved a right. Wanting something to be a right isn’t an uncommon feeling, from what I’ve see and heard, but it’s not the same as what actual rights are.

From what I’ve read, desiccant dehumidifiers are less energy-efficient than refrigerator types.

! Moderator Note Luc is having difficulty posting replies; we hope that the expiration of the 24 hour limit on new members fixes the problem

Are any of these things actual rights? How does someone’s desire to be referred to in a certain way interfere with free speech? Is that enforced by some government agency, who will toss you in jail or fine you if you don’t comply?

Depends on what’s comfortable. 90% relative humidity at 10 C will be 50% at 20 C. There’s about 9g/m^3 water; it takes 4.18 J/g to heat the water. Still, 50% isn’t particularly comfortable. If you want to reduce the humidity, you will have to condense water out of it. That means cooling it a few degrees and having the water condense, the reheating the air. Condensation takes 2259 J per gram. Removing the water takes a lot of energy.

Laws are, or can be made to be, mathematical statements. We have to do more than see that B always happens after A. We have to know that B doesn’t happen unless A does, and there is not some hidden causal factor involved. You might find that shark attacks correlate with ice cream sales, but buying ice cream doesn’t cause shark attacks.

! Moderator Note Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and 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

This was about LGBTQ rights, so I’m at a loss as to how this is infringing on/ interfering with anyone else’s rights, or “power” Or did you have some other example in mind?

That’s not how math works. The equation says if f has a nonzero value, there is a force. (as long as K and RM are nonzero) For your description to hold, f would have to depend on the change in some variable, e.g. it could be a derivative. So an object accelerates in the direction of absolute motion. What direction is that? “south” as you’ve implied before?

Force is a vector. What is the vector term on the right-hand side of the force equation? What is the direction of the force?

Yes

Entanglement does not cause a wave function to collapse. The individual states in an entangled state are undetermined, and superposition does not require entanglement.

It’s not the same $100. At the very least, it’s $94 after the first purchase. You’re adding an extra $6 in each step. But yes, more transactions means more tax. But it also means more income for the business in each step, and more income for the workers. The government is not the only beneficiary of a robust economy. $100 spent does not generally turn into $100 profit, that can be spent in the same fashion. The item purchased had some wholesale cost, and there is value added by labor. Not all money that is spent is subject to sales tax

Pi squared is approximately the magnitude of g. The half-period of a 1m pendulum is very close to 1 sec, and T = 2*pi sqrt(L/g) (This was a very early realization of the second but is lacking in consistency since g is not constant on the earth’s surface) —- g varies with height, so trying to use the surface value for a geostationary satellite is problematic. It’s actually 35,786 km in altitude, or 42,164 km from the center of the earth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit

This does not follow. You’re arguing that Newtonian physics (or Galilean relativity) must be correct. What evidence do you have that this is so? Even in Newtonian physics, the energy relationship is nonlinear. The amount of energy it takes to double one’s speed is not twice as large. Relativity just has a different nonlinear relationship, and that relationship is derived from the notion that the speed of light is invariant. That invariance carries with it certain ramifications - that time and distance are relative values, that mass is a form of energy, that no massive object can attain the speed of light, and massless entities must travel at c. Knowing the cause, or the “nature” of space, are issues of philosophy. Physics investigates how nature behaves, and physics theories have to agree with observation. As such, we quantify the behaviors under investigation. That’s why we need the math - it allows for prediction and comparison with experiment. Sure it is. Theory has to match experiment, and we need to quantify the behavior. The thing is, we can investigate more mundane behaviors to test this idea. But you haven’t been able to articulate the idea in a way that allows for others to investigate anything. The equations you have given don’t work in very fundamental ways. You can’t give a direction to the acceleration, and if you call something a force or acceleration, then they have to be those things, in accordance with existing physics. If they aren’t - e.g. if you have something that doesn’t have units of force, then it’s not a force. You have to fix it, or call it something else. By making vague predictions and explanations for exotic observations, you have jumped ahead of the process of testing your idea. Acceleration is acceleration. a = dv/dt Even with constant acceleration, velocity continually changes. That’s what an acceleration is - a change in velocity. The issue hare is that you’re convinced that your idea is right, despite not having that math that would allow for testing, but math and scientific evidence are what’s needed to convince physicists. And that’s the bulk of the work in developing a physics theory. Asking someone to do the math for you isn’t likely to gain traction, because for someone who understand what’s going on, it’s pretty obvious that the math isn’t going to work.

I don’t think you did. It’s knowing which path the electrons took that eliminates the interference pattern. It doesn’t require that someone observe them.

The agreement of units is that each side of an equation must resolve to the same units. Individual terms do not have to be the same. Newton could, because he had a clean slate and was inventing physics. But we’re not dealing with a new branch of physics.

That’s not an accurate summary of the situation. When you see something, your brain assumes light traveled in a straight line from the object to your eye. If the path curved, then the object isn’t where you see it. Similar to the image of an object in water being displaced owing to refraction. Since the light changes direction, the amount displacement depends on how far away it is. If you draw lines to the apparent position and actual position, the angle will depend on the distance to the object. It’s simple geometry. Shown in Fig. 4. The angle change gets smaller as the distance increases. The final number can be found by taking the limit as distance goes to infinity. As long as the distance is very large compared to the distance from the earth to the sun, the object can be treated as being infinitely far away. The difference between the angle at a few LY and infinity is immeasurably small.

I said physiology, not psychology. But the brain is involved in color perception. Particle behavior does not require observation of the photon.

Units need to be consistent with existing physics mc^2 has units of energy and Einstein derived the equation. He didn’t just cough it up on a whim. Mass and distance affect the force of gravity; this is observed in nature with orbital behavior. Transformations are unitless because they have to be - you don’t change the units of the quantity you are transforming You’re not being asked for the “why” in this fashion. But consistent reasoning, physically reasonable behavior of equations and proper units are required.

What does this have to do with your assertion about evolution?

To someone observing you, it matters. The direction you are traveling before the curve is not toward the observer - there is a sideways component. The longer you travel along that initial path, the larger the displacement. But the curvature is the same. It’s shown in fig 4. The displacement angles are clearly different

Perpendicular motion doesn’t change the absolute speed. Which means the equation can’t be correct You’ve had a decade to develop this. This seems pretty fundamental.

If you are a theoretician then you had better be able to do math The direction of the acceleration matters. If it’s the local speed then the effect is not cyclic for an orbit; the local speed is nominally constant. It is not. You have yet to answer studiot’s question.