swansont

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

Are you used to following rules? I linked to them already

Its local speed is less than c

How much cycles will you get per night? Now, imagine running a heat engine at a higher temperature (i.e. at 373K instead of 273), and using the same heat sink. What happens to the efficiency?

Right. Which means the energy would be better put to use on a more efficient device.

Nothing has a speed that exceeds c. Expansion is not a speed as we normally discuss speed.

Until that becomes "all" then you can't really disagree. Some people will inevitably want more, and that's why the system fails.

Put a few kg of mass on top and see if that's still true. Well, it's a heat engine, so yeah. You convert some small fraction of the heat into work. In this case probably a very small fraction, since efficiency depends on the temperatures involved.

Hawking radiation won't leave at lightspeed, unless it's a photon. JC didn't say anything about a fusion reactor, he just said that you'd need to get the gas bery hot to get to that speed. No, it doesn't result in that.

They're part of human nature, so they are inevitable, and why nobody has gotten communism to work. It's never true communism. You end up at Orwell's "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others"

Then you can make inquiries and learn the technical limitations. Radioactive decay does not get you the power for this to be a viable energy source. It's got to be an actual perspective and not a fanciful illusion.