swansont

! Moderator Note Speculations must be supported by some combination of a model, testable predictions, and evidence. This isn’t even close.

1. You haven’t provided a video 2. People have to be able to participate without watching videos, per rule 2.7 3. It’s still anecdotal, at best “he thinks” is opinion, not fact. The Copenhagen interpretation is, as you say, philosophy, not physics. Or even physiatry. Where did you see this? A video? The notion that you are part of the physics community such that you could “see” this is fanciful.

! Moderator Note You’ve offered no evidence. Anecdotes aren’t evidence. “probably” isn’t evidence.

! Moderator Note You may have mistyped the URL. This is not a conspiracy discussion site

I noticed this a few months ago; it made reading on my ipad unpleasant. Got an ad-blocker.

Google, how does it work? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_refrigeration#Commercial_development

So exchemist's instincts were correct.

No, it is not. The large radius means the mass is quite large, the effect of movement of a small mass is going to be small. How would it do that? edit: keep in mind that this shift is happening over the course of millions of years

All science is provisional. There is no data to support this; the weak interaction is very short-ranged and is not responsible for the gravitational interaction exhibited by dark matter. WIMPs are particles not in the standard model, and interact via mechanism(s) not in the standard model. Saying it interacts weakly is ambiguous, since there is something called the weak interaction, and there is also the notion of not having a robust coupling. Physicists kinda painted ourselves into a corner a little bit with this

There's a part where they claim "Neither classical nor standard quantum theory predicts quantum coherence for water, largely because they ignore quantum fluctuations and the interaction between matter and the vacuum electromagnetic field (VEMF), which are taken into account in Quantum Field Theory (QFT)" but there are no citations. Not surprising, as they say it's not taken into account, but then, you have to develop this model, which they do not do. So they're just forging ahead with the assertion that such interactions are relevant without showing it, and without specifying what these interactions actually would be doing. and then "QFT explicitly recognizes an extended VEMF interacting with matter, as well as quantum fluctuations whereby energy in the VEMF in the form of photons could be captured by matter." which AFAIK is flat-out wrong. The vacuum does not passively give you photons that could be captured. You can't tap into the energy of the vacuum.

OTOH, if they were making real progress they could report real progress, in terms of milestones The one possible positive here is that it's not obvious that they will be leaving the project in private hands for further development; it seems like the government is all-in on the work.

I don't see where that was suggested " i assume the geologic science is correct and that the tectonic plates forming the continents as we know now, originate from 1 tectonic plate about 300 million years ago" sounds a lot like you were, in fact, saying that Why must it? It's not clear at all that you are discussing the earth's gravitational field. You're worried about the center-of-mass shifting; what you could do is see how much it might shift. The deepest part of the ocean is ~10 km, and most land is under a few km above sea level. Compare this to the radius of the earth, being ~6400 km. IOW, the amount of mass represented by the continents is small compared to that of the earth. If you rearrange the masses on the surface, what might change slightly is the wobble of the earth's rotation, which is something we already observe on shorter time scales. Freezing and melting of ice sheets causes this, too. https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/why-the-earth-wobbles/

So I looked up what these are; they're like the bendy part of a bendy straw. You can imagine that the bent sections "give" a little when you pull or push on them, but the end section is connected to the more rigid part, so the central parts would just expand slightly under a pull, like a spring, but the ones at the edge can't do this, so they "pop" open. As a trend, not an absolute, because the manufacturing variations mean that each section might require more or less of a force to make it pop.

As has been revealed in the other fusion discussions recently, this article is thin on useful information. How hot the plasma gets is only one technical aspect, but like the adage about the law, when the temperature of the plasma is what you have, pound on the temperature of the plasma. I don't see where they explain how close to break-even they are, or how close to self-sustaining they are. Any predictions need to be taken with a grain of salt. I'm confident that if the history of the project were looked into, you would find schedule slips galore. Such is the nature of both research and construction projects. This thing has been in operation for >15 years.

I gave my assessment and nothing has changed The fact that Fleischmann and cold fusion are mentioned in some of the associated works gives a hint. Scientists leaping to conclusions without sufficient supporting information is hardly a new phenomenon.

Well, no. It's not your thread, and nobody is really obligated to follow a line of inquiry that goes beyond the scope of the OP. If you want to start a new thread, feel free, but you can't compel people to participate in it.

FYI, I'm not going to go looking for the supporting information that you have apparently found but chosen not to share links to. edit: and it's also the case that people propose models all the time in papers, but it doesn't mean they are right. There needs to be experimental confirmation

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10346933/China-develops-AI-prosecutor-press-charges-97-accuracy.html What does "an artificial intelligence prosecutor that can charge people with crimes with more than 97 per cent accuracy" even mean? That the AI finds the right crime(s) to charge you with, given a certain amount of evidence? Or that you're likely to be guilty if it "decides" to charge you? "It was 'trained' using 17,000 real life cases from 2015 to 2020 and is able to identify and press charges for the eight most common crimes in Shanghai. These include 'provoking trouble' - a term used to stifle dissent in China, credit card fraud, gambling crimes, dangerous driving, theft, fraud, intentional injury and obstructing official duties." If you're pulled over for doing 120 km/hr in a 60 zone, do you really need an AI to decide if that's dangerous driving? Is the "AI" doing anything more than an algorithmic lookup of what the threshold is for dangerous driving? If it's predicting guilt, one has to wonder about the bias present in an authoritarian regime that might be able to just decide that you're guilty.

Are they a physicist? I looked at reference [2] and don't see much in the way of physics discussion; they all seem to be citing each other without anything in the way of rigorous physics analysis. There are no equations, at least in the first several papers of [2]. That strikes me as odd for QED discussion. They all seem to be stating certain physics premises and then proceeding as if they are true, rather than establishing them as true. I am not reassured by the citation of cold fusion in the first article in that reference, nor by the incorrect description of paramagnetism in the original article.

It’s more like springs than rubber bands; these represent the electrostatic force present in bonds. So they are there for pushing and pulling, and it does take some time for these to propagate through a material, as you note.

What if there are two observers, at rest with respect to each other? Do they each see acceleration toward them?

Acceleration is not relative.

Then show the math that demonstrates a net acceleration on a particular mass if you have a uniform distribution of mass in the background. I did not make any claim about expansion.

You’re mis-applying the principle here. The shell theorem applies to spherical symmetry, but you don’t have a finite sphere in this case. You have to have all the mass enclosed within R to apply it. You can look at translational symmetry, too. If you have a uniform distribution of mass, you can choose any origin you want and get the same answer, so there can’t be an acceleration toward any point.

This makes no sense. There’s nothing to “add up” and there is only one R, which encompasses the universe.