swansont

! Moderator Note Tangential discussion on the details of GEM has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/122841-gem-split-from-thought-experiment-how-would-physics-develop-without-einstein/

Brahms has been decomposed as a sockpuppet of Drakes and Delberty

And that was about the time we crossed from being more rural to more urban. 750k per rep vs 120k is a large imbalance in representation

Unless you heat the water and then remove it from the room, it won't have a cooling effect. You would just be moving the thermal energy around, but it will still be there.

I'm pretty sure they are aware, especially ones who have gotten to the level of being elected to congress. Gender discrimination is a subset of sexism. The former is against the law in some settings, but the latter, while many rightfully frown upon it, is not.

That really hurt Trump, didn't it? The problem here is there is no "right" way to be a woman in politics. People who don't like them will make up excuses not to like them. True of men to some extent (tribalism is real), but amplified with women, since it includes many metrics never used on men.

! Moderator Note Appeal denied

That was Heisenberg’s original argument, but it’s incorrect. The uncertainty is inherent, owing to the wave nature of QM. The variables are Fourier transforms of each other, and the uncertainty drops out of the math. Experiments I’ve seen use polarization states for photons, or spin projection for electrons. Easier to prepare, I would imagine.

And, I will add, this is not just true for the Schrödinger equation. In all of physics, there is the tendency to analytically solve only the simplest systems. It’s one reason we tend to look at ideal systems, and ignore complicating factors as much as possible.

That doesn’t support the claim. (though “most rape victims, who don't know their attacker, are attacked out of the blue and usually from behind“ is ambiguous. Is the claim that most rape victims don’t know their attacker, or of the small fraction that don’t, are attacked from behind? The former is debunked, the latter isn’t supported)

"There are some gray areas so all areas are gray" is failed logic

You are excluding it, and that's not a consensus. Who comprises this consensus? Not the scientific community. In your opinion, perhaps, but stop pretending that this is widely shared. Not particularly relevant to my point.

That's Schottky emission, which is a combination of thermal effects and a voltage There's nothing to prevent you from putting a voltage on this, but that basic description of thermionic emission refers to having the thermal energy exceed the work function. IOW, saying it's an arc discharge is fine (that covers both effects), but specifying that it's thermionic emission is misleading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermionic_emission And that gives you a field. What magnetic field? You didn't specify one.

A lot. You refer to “the connecting structure (green)” and “a power source (inside green)” which is where the spark should occur. I asked about them, and you haven’t clarified anything Thermionic emission comes from a high temperature, not a potential difference No? There’s no electric or magnetic field? How do they work?

tenet - a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy. tenant - a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

As Strange said, no. The HUP applies to limitations on measurements involving observables that don’t commute.

All space is expanding, and the limitation of c doesn’t apply to space.

What is a pseudo-magnetic field? How is this localized? How does localization affect spin precession? What is the commutation relation involved, that would allow one to invoke the HUP?

Invariant c comes from Maxwell’s equations. The electromagnetic wave equation only works if c is invariant, and we know that EM waves are still waves when there is relative motion between source and receiver. Plus, relativity works. That’s from space expanding. That’s not what’s going on. Relativity is accepted because it works. Really well. That what the well-tested theory says. And every time we test it, it passes.

What is the analogue of the copper tube? What would be exerting this “back-reaction”? It was atoms and a magnetic barrier.

Many instruments pre-date modern science, so really, trial and error is the only way for it to have happened

Force on a current is from an external field. You have not identified such a field. “connecting structure” and “power source”? Nothing here is a current in a wire.

Does it? Can you point to science that confirms this?

! Moderator Note One could argue that much of the OP is off-topic for the religion category, and you still have not justified putting this thread here, as I requested

So why is this posted in philosophy?