swansont

Which lab? I read that there are two in Wuhan.

I think our nature us to want explanations/answers. We also tend to want neatness. Sometimes we settle for simple and wrong because then no further thought is required.

The numbers are not normalized by cost of living. Rice, for example, costs ~4x as much in the United States as it does in Vietnam. So an expenditure that is 4x higher does not mean they are eating 4x more. https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_price_rankings?itemId=115

That’s nihilism.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion site, not your blog. Preaching is not allowed here Link removed.

The electrons repel each other, too. Any perturbation of the electrons that distort the cloud leaves a charge imbalance. I don’t see why the inverse square law is a problem. Yes, but thermal energy is typically much smaller than the ionization energy, so that’s not a problem unless the temperature is quite high.

The electrons attract nucleus. If you move the electron cloud around, it will drag the nucleus with it.

But such transitions could be induced in collisions

link to article: https://apnews.com/article/havana-syndrome-intelligence-anonalous-health-incidents-diplomats-cf087b8255532056b5597232544bfb71

The proton and the electron spins can be aligned or anti-aligned, and you can have correlations of the electron spins. That’s probably how you get the nuclear spin alignment. The lower ground state is F=0, so that’s anti-aligned electron and proton spins. F=1 is higher in energy, corresponding to 1420 MHz (the hyperfine splitting) Cold atoms tend to be in the lower hyperfine state.

The reason QM was not discovered until later on in the timeline of physics is because this connection becomes tenuous as one moves from micro to macro.

Can confirm - we recently discussed how to clamp down on such commentary. It does nothing to move the discussion forward, and only provides opportunity to sidetrack things, with folks who seem prone to tangents.

vova has been banned as a sockpuppet of wlad

You still have massless fermions and no evidence of them You’re still posting about an argument between you and a journal.

! Moderator Note FFS, not again. YOU CAN’T ADVERTISE YOUR BOOKS HERE. Do it again and you will be banned. We’re also uninterested in whatever beef you have with a journal or reviewer.

! Moderator Note It’s clear from your presentation that you are the author of this book, and advertising it is against the rules of the forum. The rejection notices are valid; you need experimental evidence to overthrow existing physics, starting with the notion that there are massless fermions (required if they are to move at c) and these are not part of the standard model. While you can propose them (there is such a proposal, called Weyl fermions) they would require experimental confirmation. You are proposing things not consistent with what we observe. Nobody is terrified of anything you have presented.

That’s just ferromagnetism. It’s inherently quantum-mechanical, at its basic level No. Magnetic fields are not an energy source. They do no work. For systems that do work and use magnetic fields, the source is elsewhere. But feel free to calculate the strength of magnetic field needed to give you the force needed to get you moving off the earth. Keep in mind that the dipole field of a magnet drops off as 1/r^3, i.e. faster than that of the gravitational field. (so more than the 1N/kg you need at the surface). This is why a magnet has to be relatively close to an object to lift it. No, it’s not hard at all. Newton’s laws suffice to tell us that you need an external force to cause an acceleration, and Maxwell’s equations limit how much of an attainable force one can get for any reasonable set of parameters. I believe it’s used in solid-state/condensed matter physics because magnetism depends on spin and orbital states, but once you get to what’s happening outside the material, it’s classical all the way.

! Moderator Note Yes, that would be a problem. ChatGPT is not a reliable source, so unless you want to dissect the problems that arise from that, this is a nonstarter.

I don’t understand the relevance. What’s your point. New housing was implied by the post I responded to (I don’t know how you increase housing otherwise), and my comments about doing a lot of construction should have made it clear that it’s what I was talking about. If you aren’t talking about new housing then you are discussing something different, and your comments likely not germane.

! Moderator Note Ultimately my hope is that you will abide by rule 2.8: Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them.

These are new dwellings? I got the impression that they are not. This did not involve subsidies? Net cost covers everything.

One of the issues here is we haven’t seen any statistics from the OP to back up their claims. All I claimed was that you aren’t going to be selling a dwelling for less that the construction cost, whatever it happens to be, unless there is some kind of subsidy. If someone has a net cost of $100,000 to build a house, they aren’t going to sell it for less. Not if they want to stay in the business of building houses. I don’t think this math is different in Europe.

And why not? We have independent evidence that the earth is >4 billion years old. That would make a stable orbit necessary, and relevant to the issue you raised. Then open a new thread to discuss MOND. Be sure to include the problems, like how MOND doesn’t work at all scales. His arguments are suspect. He says that the error bars on c are in the decimal places, referring to a 1945 result, but the state of the art in 1950 was 299792.5±3.0 km/s This is one reason we restrict the use of video - it’s hard to check references. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light If he’s BS-ing about that, there’s no confidence he’s not BS-ing about other claims. So: don’t rely on some video. We want links to actual scientific results. (also: how is this a “banned” talk if we can see it? Banned by whom? More BS) edit: This has an extensive list of measurements of c; a lot of them have error bars, and most are large in the pre-1950 values (table 1; also see fig 3) The value might easily differ by 20 km/s, but (as with the observation John Cuthber made about G) if the differences are consistent with the experimental error, you can’t legitimately say it changed — unless you’re trying to pull a fast one https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_ANSO_132_0359--determining-the-speed-of-light.htm

! Moderator Note Then there is no thread. Don’t bring the topic up again.

What is quantum magnetism, this thing that physicists haven’t figured out?