swansont

Because, as I said, time isn't an object or substance, or anything that has momentum or energy. It doesn't travel a physical path. A model with time as a substance would very likely fail, unless you also changed the rest of physics. You need a new model (and name) for what we call gravity, for instance. But I don’t think anyone can falsify a model that doesn’t exist.

Skydiving works here, too. ”I never knew dogs could scream!”

I don’t recall these being described in the OP. You had a tube and a turbine. I think my disbelief was well-founded, based on the available information.

That wasn’t one, so...

You made an assertion without backing it up, so thou doth protest too much, methinks.

No, we know Coulomb’s law works. If you contradict known, confirmed physics (and you have), you’re finished.

What about a proton and a positron? Same mass relationship, but a repulsive force. But electrons do more than "not get close to each other" - they actively repel, with the same force as exists between two protons. The electrons are pulled with the electrostatic force. Deuterium doesn't have twice the attractive force on an electron owing to the extra neutron. The effect is small, owing the different reduced mass of the system, which shifts the energies a small fraction of a percent - not anywhere close to a factor of 2.

There's no need. The Egyptians didn't make it in a lab. You can find slate in lots of places.

No, they are not. Different department in universities; often called out as distinct from science in their organization. (look at how many have "college of science and engineering" or separate colleges altogether) Different approach to solving problems.

I provided the calculations. Even if you tapped in to the whole decay chain there is a tiny amount of power. If it's just radon, it's far, far less. (Plus that much radon would likely kill everyone.) I seriously doubt that.

No, they're different by a factor of about 3 An interesting question might be whether they had similar values at some time in the past. With less expansion I would expect the difference between (age)*(speed of light) and Rs is smaller.

! Moderator Note https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/ From 2.7 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. We've had that in place for years. ! Moderator Note This is moot. You haven't supplied a link to an article. ! Moderator Note The brain controlling the heartbeat is a far cry from two brains interacting with each other Don't bring this up again.

The calculation looks fine. It's the radius of the observable universe that's wrong.

! Moderator Note You have been here long enough to know that "go watch this video" is not in keeping with the rules, and that simply restating your claim is not going to fly. Last chance: provide actual scientific evidence that this claim is true.

The part where it's powered by radioactive decay has already been dismantled.

IOW, you are in a steady-state condition. The gradient causes flow, it is not preserved by it. I seriously doubt that. Which is what I expect will happen if you tried this. So the pressure will equilibrate much faster than any flow you are expecting.

And why won’t the pressure just equalize? Once it has propagated, the whole tube is at pressure. You’re all done. How big of a gradient are you expecting? How fast does the pressure differential propagate?

! Moderator Note Establish, with citations, that this is a thing

Quite often the decays will strip electrons (shake-off electrons) as the charged particle is emitted/ejected. In alpha and beta decays. “The charge distributions of several alpha emitters were studied29-33 and they varied from -1 to +10 in the absence of internal conversion. Approximately 90% of the recoiling atoms carried zero or +1 charge and the mean charge was less than 1” https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/4262551 So at least 1 shake-off electron, and often 2 or 3. Sometimes more.

No, this does not follow. Why wouldn’t the pressure just go up? (also you seen to assume instantaneous freezing and melting, and that it would happen along the direction of the pipe, and not in the radial direction, from outside in. The thing is, some distance away, you are melting ice and having a corresponding collapse of 240 m of ice into 222 m of liquid water, which means there could just be a certain pressure increase, which remains static, and the system is in steady-state. No motion relative to the ground. I’m not seeing a net impulse exerted to the water.

Thanks Why do you think the water will flow, when it’s in a closed loop blocked at both ends?

How do you calculate this result?

! Moderator Note Staff gets to decide what is speculation, and one should pay attention to the explanations as to why that decision was made, and why threads are closed. Ignoring modnotes telling to not open a new thread on a topic, or to stop posting on that topic, is a poor tactic to implement One thing we’re not going to do is litigate these decisions in a science thread. Rule 2.5 says stay on-topic, and this is decidedly off topic.

! Moderator Note You need to establish that this premise is correct

Then space is being added between you and it. Independent of any motion of the object. Here’s a better explanation https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123997-expansioninflation-and-the-separation-velocity/?tab=comments#comment-1164053