swansont

No, it doesn't. It might reflect more on the business, if the green product is less profitable, and that's why it is not being offered. Again, no evidence presented for your narrative. "lying for the environment" seems to be your description here (so you'd be guilty of the same hyperbole you are decrying), and you have not shown it has crept into research - no links to actual journal articles, as far as I can see. You've shown it has crept into PR, and I'm wondering why anyone is shocked that PR uses hyperbole. It's true in the US, too, as far as my experience goes. There's this myth that "the market will provide" and people that preach market solutions for problems, rather than government solutions. But the pure capitalism that some worship only cares about maximizing profits. I think it's a failure of having large corporations and conglomerates. A small company might see value in an incremental increase in profits from one product, while a large company is less likely to. Also, if you already have a large market share, you might be less inclined to care about consumer loyalty, if there aren't alternatives to your product. Tying in with the topic: Tesla is an example of a company making a (potentially) "green" product, but they had to start up on their own, probably because existing car companies didn't want to cannibalize their own sales. But we see that people will buy such products if offered. Hybrids, too, but they were introduced because the US government forced the issue by raising gas mileage standards, and companies needed some cars with great mileage to bring the average up. And lo and behold, they sell. Demand is there. Tesla had a multi-year waiting list for their cars at the beginning; demand far exceeded supply. Hybrid electric + EV sales keep increasing

Scuffing your feet on the carpet while holding a fluorescent bulb is another way to pass the time leveraging static electricity (My childhood was pre-Star Wars, so we didn't know to pretend it was a light saber)

! Moderator Note How about we return to the topic, and not post otherwise

That’s not how taxes work.

Closing on 1000 posts and 5 years here; that’s hardly a newcomer. And there’s plenty of quality science given in response to dubious claims. The main issue is that the feedback wasn’t incorporated into the discussion.

The question was “Does Energy depend on frames of reference?” not whether it’s conserved within a frame of reference. Yes, total energy depends on the reference frame.

Yes, it’s a highly-held secret. It’s not like they’d tell you in any of the journal articles, or other sources that are easily Googled.</s>

Yes, but unfortunately the people that need to learn them are unwilling or unable to learn them. The denial overlap is extensive.

Really? That’s what you got from this discussion? (You can go back and reread, if you actually want to learn) Yes, multiple times

You don’t get to tell physicists how to do physics. People like to use “accelerate” to mean “speed up” but that’s not what it means in physics. And it doesn’t matter what linguists (or you) decide.

This is a physics discussion. Krauss can use physics terminology, or terminology applied in a physics context, rather than lay usage. Perhaps it’s not needless. Reminiscent of the different definitions of ‘vacuum’

And the evidence for this is? (As usual, you have a narrative that you do not support) Are people being offered alternatives? Are they all refusing them in favor of more damaging alternatives? I don't think they are refusing them - there are people who buy carbon offsets and who opt for green energy when offered a choice. People shop at places that offer fair trade products and ecologically sustainable products, too, so we know this kind of consumer exists, your narrative notwithstanding. A carbon tax can be structured in a number of ways. It could be like income tax, where you have marginal rates and exemptions/deductions. It could be progressive or a flat rate. So your beef is with the label. A retracted paper and lying are not the same thing. I'm not sure what cancer has to do with environmentalism in general or carbon in particular. Again, this is your narrative, and not based on any data or studies you have presented. Again, so what? Do you have a point here, or are you just spouting random statistics and factoids?

Because that seemed a reasonable summary of the post when I split this off.

r=0 is inconsistent with this

Why would you use 780 nm on sodium? BECs require cold, not hot. Klaynos was right. You’ve not learned one damn thing.

At r=0? Has the Heisenberg uncertainty principle been revoked? (i.e. you continue to ignore QM and then for some reason be surprised that classical physics fails at small scales)

One gamma, typically. With a massive particle nearby so that momentum will be conserved. You will never actually get pair production at this energy. It’s the theoretical asymptotic limit (i.e. you know you can’t get PP below that threshold) You only get infinity if you naively apply classical equations, which is one reason we know classical physics fails at small distances.

No, it’s not theoretical. That implies science is involved. This is pure fiction. Then you know nothing about BEC, despite this discussion.

(I moved this to politics, because there’s no physics insight being revealed here.)

! Moderator Note Your thesis is comprised of multiple unfounded claims, which you need to support. The default position is that you are wrong, until you can establish that you are right; IOW, any theory requires evidence. Our rules are aligned with this position. ! Moderator Note Indeed. Argument by quotation suggests there’s no evidence to examine, or detailed model to analyze

This assumes the energy of the electric field can somehow be separated from the mass energy of the electron.

Because gold (and silver) clearly can’t be mined and minted into new coins, or formed into bars and added to the reserve? What do you think “conserved” means?

https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/ (one of the options under “browse” at top left) Section 1: Purpose Statement ScienceForums.net is dedicated to providing a forum for the discussion of all things scientific with the highest degree of integrity and respectability. We aim to provide all individuals, regardless of their education level, a forum to express their ideas and love of science. People who want to be moderators are generally not moderator material. It’s a version of Catch-22.

Governments can print money, economies can multiply it, but energy is a conserved quantity. If you can track where energy goes, it will all add up to the same amount.

Not all the air; there will be a gradient of density. Similar to how air pressure (and density) near the earth’s surface is higher than it is at some distance above the surface, owing to the affect of gravity.