swansont

I'm not sure of the current storage technology. I know metal hydrides were being used, but that was years ago, and the knock on them was they were heavy. Hydrogen under high pressure is a bit of a danger. "If a 20% hydrogen blend was rolled out across the country it could save around six million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year, the equivalent of taking 2.5 million cars off the road. Hydrogen blending at this level could also open the door to greater use of hydrogen – possibly up to 100% in the network – and kick off a low-carbon hydrogen economy in the UK. " This, of course, assume green sources for making the hydrogen, which is often glossed over in the discussions. Hydrogen can only be as green as the method that produces it. i.e. this tacitly assumes you're not burning coal to make hydrogen. As I recall hydrogen embrittlement was a problem for pipelines, and I don't know if that's been solved. There's no mention of that issue. I think there has been advances in plastics that would allow for hydrogen transport. But that would be all new infrastructure. Agree. I know there are fuel cell vehicles out there, but often they are for local use - forklifts and such, with hydrogen generation probably done on-site. Possibly for local delivery as well. But until you can "fill up" away from your home area, it's a non-starter.

As hinted at above, the big issue is that we don't "mine" hydrogen, or produce it in a way that gives us hydrogen for an energy input that's smaller than the energy we get from combustion. As such, it's not an energy source, it's a storage medium This the comparison is to batteries, not the energy source. Do you store the energy in a battery or do you store it in a hydrogen tank of some sort. Do you transport electricity over wires, or do you have a hydrogen pipeline. EV's are winning because the storage and transport are more mature infrastructure. Putting charging stations in places is easier because we already send electricity to those places, but we don't send hydrogen. The production is not there at scale, and the pipeline isn't in place.

Yes, that's correct for the twins paradox but this problem as stated is not the twins paradox, and therefore the twins paradox should not be under discussion. i.e. I answered the question that was asked, not some other question that was not asked. If they are moving at the same speed, they are at rest with respect to each other and therefore in the same frame. If they are not, then there is relative motion and they will not see length and time as being the same. I don't know what you mean by "stack" or "perceived reference frame"

You link to and describe "Hole through the center of the Earth " The earth is not a black hole. You don't even mention a black hole until. the end of your post. Sorry, I was looking for a legitimate physics reason. Silly me. Is "balance" an accepted phenomenon? What is the actual mechanism for changing the particle into its antiparticle, using only a gravitational interaction? ZPE is the inertia of the mass? Sorry, that's gibberish. Maybe you should take physics 101 first. More gibberish. Need less handwave, more rigor.

Until they slide off the side and crash. Or want to stop. Friction is more than an impediment to speeding up.

What singularity? Why does the particle turn into an antiparticle when it goes south of the equator? What does ZPE have to do with this? You have described a purely classical problem. Same for the Higgs field. I see no math to speak of that would allow one to draw any conclusions.

They are in different reference frames owing to their relative motion. Each will perceive length and time differently from the other. Assuming you haven't omitted other details, this is unchanged by "passing through" the other.

And yet much of modern electronic technology is heavily reliant on QM. Integrated circuits and lasers — devices needed to make a computer/smart phone and a network run, allowing you to post this. Atomic clocks and GPS, which has become ubiquitous in much of the world. Medical technology like MRI. Quite a happy accident that they all work, despite constructs not being able to tell us anything.

A high-school friend was the science consultant for ST:TNG. I have some inside insight. Yes, they gave a nod to accepted science. But they also ignored it if they had a storyline they liked. Not explaining how they worked is because they couldn’t. Star Wars doesn’t explain how lightsabers work, which is the same non-explanation of the unphysical.

At this point I’ve tuned Bob out, because I seriously doubt his sincerity.

That doesn't stop people from trying. Applies to Star Trek, too.

You've made an excellent argument in support of moderated exchanges, in which a third party has the authority to tell Bob that assertion isn't argument, things are not true simply because he says they are, and if he continues to argue in bad faith, he will be shown the door. Then there is no point in communication, so all of this is moot. From a practical standpoint, we must reject Bob's position, because if everything is the same no progress can be made. All trees are fish and all fish are trees, declared by fiat! Bob: My work is done, pay me! Bob's boss: You did no work at all. Bob: No work and all work are the same thing! Pay me! <later> <Bob carries sign: Will philosophize exceedingly badly for food> It's the "Where's Waldo" where Waldo is the only person in the frame.

I was referring to the motors themselves. All else being equal, going from even a 30% efficient ICE to a 75% efficient electric motor seems like a big win. And that's before you consider Ken F's point about CO2 reduction (which would be maximized if you got your electricity from a green source) At some point efficiency bumps up against the utility of the vehicle. If the aerodynamic shape means you can't carry the stuff you want to carry, your potential customer population shrinks. Ethanol seems very much in this category. Unclear on the benefits other than corporate welfare. Other efforts seem niche and it's not clear to me that they scale very well.

Well, it discussed physics.

Bob is wrong. He is not arguing, he is asserting. And he is asserting something which is not true. This makes any conclusion based on his premise invalid. This is a little like the Monty Python sketch about arguments, except in the MP sketch the bad faith is done to be funny, and it's not at all evident that you are attempting humor here. Are you contending that Bob's assertion is credible?

TBH, I would reply "F*ck you, Bob. Stop arguing in bad faith" "affirmation and negation are indeed not the same thing" The rest of this is logical error and fallacy. To assert yes=no, after one has affirmed that they are not equivalent, one is drawing an invalid conclusion and then using circular reasoning with anything that follows. IOW, Bob's an idiot. ! Moderator Note And, I would like to point out, that shilling for a book is a violation of our rules (advertising) and posting with an agenda (that this was a setup to shill for your book) is a violation of our rule on good faith arguments. Which is why this thread is now in the trash.

Vacuum energy isn't negative. It's infinite, and can't be accessed to do work (except in the minds of some crackpots) What's most important in physics is energy difference between two states, which can be negative. We often define potential energy so that it is negative in all but the trivial case, so negative energy is (in that regard) already a coherent concept. But studiot is right, a better definition is needed. A distinction between inertial and gravitational mass would be a decent start, because there are different implications (and possible contradictions) for it being one but not the other, or the alternate case, or both.

Is there something you wanted to actually discuss? I will point out that the power of a laser (power having a meaning in physics) is largely uncoupled from the wavelength. You can have a very powerful red laser and a not very powerful violet laser. Generally speaking, the shorter the wavelength is the harder it is to make the laser, and the harder it is to make a powerful laser.

Not probably. We already observe this to be true, especially at the red end of the spectrum.

Internal combustion is part of the problem - typically pretty low thermal efficiency of ~20-25%. Diesel is generally better. Getting away from the combustion format altogether is probably where the big improvement is. Electric motors are more like 75-80% efficient, and benefit directly from things like regenerative braking.

No, it is not (the other option was "yes, it is" but both can't be true, and they aren't the same)

! Moderator Note No, which makes perfectly reasonable to ask for clarification. What is far less reasonable is to hijack a thread to engage in personal attacks. Hence the relocation of these posts.

The Casimir effect is well-understood without invoking negative mass. That’s why you need the next step of looking at what kind of experiment or what evidence exists to support the hypothesis. How can this be tested?

There are different elements and isotopes, each with a different electron energy structure, owing to the variation in the charges and charge distributions in the nucleus. The differences in the electrostatic interaction strength have a direct effect on the energy levels. (e.g. two protons have twice the force on an electron as compared to one proton, all else being the same)

philo2001 banned as a sockpuppet of altaylar2000