swansont

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?

! Moderator Note I don’t see the connection here. Why does “line of sight” to a black hole - something not visible - matter? Why wasn’t this investigation into variations of religion in your OP, and what does this have to with a new religion? How is your “new religion” an actual religion? What is being worshipped, and what is the supernatural deity/dieties?

Police don’t run prisons, and these are separate institutions, so how is this not a false dichotomy?

We were discussing Stirling engines. One example at a time, remember? From your link: (pp 14-15, emphasis added) “It's important to understand that a refrigerator is a heat engine that operates in reverse. Energy is transferred from a low level to high level, which is contrary to the spontaneous processes that occur in nature. To accomplish this transfer, an amount of work must be supplied dependent on the temperatures involved. Energy must be added to this workload to compensate for the inefficiencies inherent in heat transfer, inefficiencies that arise from heat exchange equipment and the irreversible behavior of compression or expansion equipment.”

Heat converted to work to drive a piston is not how a refrigeration cycle works "Driving the engine mechanically" is not a conversion of heat into work. Hot things cooling off/cool things warming up requires no engine; it happens spontaneously. A refrigerator takes the cold bit and makes it colder. This requires and engine, as it will not happen spontaneously.

If it runs in the same direction, how does it cool?

! Moderator Note Very well

Types of decay ≠ types of radiation (e.g. electron capture is a decay, not a type of radiation) The radiation is any energetic particle emitted as a result of decay.

! Moderator Note You need to post the information here, not via links and documents. People have to be able to participate without requiring clicking on anything. This requirement has not changed

Iron will become activated, but the isotopes have either shorter half-lives than Co-60, or much longer, in which case it has a low activity.

Simply repeating yourself doesn’t clarify anything What, specifically, “is a bit more likely to create a proton”? What’s the reaction? And if you start with equal amounts of matter and antimatter, why would this create an asymmetry?

The material has a long half-life, or there is a decay chain involved, with moderate to long half-lives.