swansont

No. Fusion reactors exist that have zero lasers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_confinement_fusion

Interpretations are to help in your understanding of QM. You go with what works for you.

Yes There aren’t that many things in outer space in between us and the things we can see. If you assume visible light, with a photon energy of ~2 eV, there are more than 10^18 photons per watt of power. Our sun emits more than 10^26 watts, as Mordred has detailed. Your estimation of trillions is woefully low. What is there to absorb or scatter photons? Yes Probably also yes.

I find “feeling hotter” to be utterly unsurprising. An obese person is better insulated and is also somewhat more spherical than a skinny person. Both promote retaining heat. I don’t see how wearing heavy clothes would incentivize exercise, which raises your core temperature. For me, feeling hot has the opposite effect. Overheating tended to shut down my ability to exercise. It’s easier to keep warm than cool off; in my experience we tolerate a wider range of cooler temperatures than warmer temperatures from a starting point of what’s normally comfortable (“room temperature” or ~22 degrees C)

How big of an effect is this? And why does it have to be on the moon?

You’ve been given examples of clocks that have no movement, or are not based on movement (i.e. the movement is incidentall)

The correlation exists, but saying it’s “physical” implies an interaction, and one needs to explain what that interaction is. The alleged paradox arises from assuming QM is ultimately classical, which is a really bad assumption.

You aren’t going to make a BH if the electrons don’t get close enough to each other, i.e. within 2x the Schwarzschild radius. Otherwise you just have a very brief moment where there’s a small electron cloud that will fly apart from the repulsion.

You want to shoot electrons together. They need enough energy to get close enough to form the black hole, and the potential energy of the configuration is the minimum amount of energy it will take. (The gravitational attraction is small, and I’m ignoring the bremsstrahlung losses as the electrons get close, which would likely be significant. And ignoring a whole host of technical obstacles.)

You should be able to calculate the electrostatic potential energy of an assembly of electrons that’s dense enough to be a black hole. Nuclei aren’t black holes, and the EPE there is measured in MeV for just a few protons. For 10 electrons you have a Schwarzschild radius of about 10^-56 m. Since the EPE is 1/r, you have to get the additional ~40 orders of magnitude of size reduction, which raises that EPE by the same factor. So it’s going to be at least 10^45 eV I’d put that in the “not possible” category

! Moderator Note Block universe discussion has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128450-time-and-relativity-split-from-the-nature-of-time/

Important cosmology update

Sure. An unidentified object that’s a weather balloon could get tangled with a known one.

The cursor should show up outside the box. If it’s inside, at the end of the text, hit return once or twice.

We didn’t have space-ready atomic clocks back when we were doing moon missions. Further, we are in the sun’s gravity well, and we’ve done measurements that used the different potential we sample as we orbit the sun (since the earth’s orbit isn’t a circle) in tests of local position invariance. https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6145 As for reasons not to do it, it’s a matter of cost/benefit. Without a compelling theoretical reason to think we’d find something new, it’s doubtful anyone would fund it. (The reason they did the Hafele-Keating experiment, since nobody was expecting a novel result, was that it was cheap - $8k - so the ONR funded it)

The issue is whether Morto knows it. I don’t think they can read your mind, and we can only go by what you write.

Electrons have the smallest nonzero amount of charge anything can have. There are a relatively large number of them available to move, so even at a few mm/sec, you can get an appreciable current.

Predictions are exact. Measurements will have uncertainty. But physics tends not to predict fundamental properties, unless they are zero.

! Moderator Note There is no need to mention it since it’s not relevant. No need to respond to the modnote. Why is this required? I’m sure there are places in Antarctica where g has not been measured. Is there any serious doubt that gravity exists there? It’s not part of theory, so how is it a weakness? GR doesn’t explain evolution, either. It doesn’t matter, since it’s not expected to. And being the ultimate theory is not a criterion, either. That said, GR has passed every experimental rest that’s been done.

! Moderator Note We aren’t discussing your theory here; it’s not your thread.

All clocks are related to GR; they will all be subject to time dilation. However, they might not have the precision to measure the effect. (note that the second description - the spin flip - is how many atomic clocks work)

It becomes more apparent when you can see the feature causing it https://twistedsifter.com/2014/01/the-sky-shadow/

That thread was about the NIF, which isn’t an approach that was designed with commercial energy generation in mind. So that thread isn’t discussing the question raised here. But AFAIK nobody yet has an answer to “How to construct economical fusion reactors?” since nobody has built one yet, and there’s no guarantee that any current approach will get there.

! Moderator Note So, no model. Closed.

“Most lab leak proponents don’t mention that most major Chinese cities have one or more active coronavirus laboratories.” https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2214427119 That would change the alleged odds. Quite dramatically, I would say. If, say, half of the major cities had such labs, and that’s where such an outbreak would be expected… 50% doesn’t seem astronomically small, but that’s just me.