swansont

False, and you would need to present evidence and a model if you want to pursue this. Nope. That’s a tautology. Either a particle is stable or it’s not. No insight into physics here. Nope. ! Moderator Note I’m not going to continue; there’s no rigor here. Provide it as required by the rules. Probably best to trim the list of claims to simplify the discussion. Perhaps the bit about nuclei being bound owing to relativistic electrons in them.

I don’t see how that’s a relevant example

You used collapse in reference to a classical wave: (it was clearly identifies as a classical example By MigL) It’s a classical example. Not a wave function.

Motor, or car? The latter is discussed in the link, and as I already summarized. I suspect there’s more friction in a gas engine than in an electric motor, as well. Pistons move, in addition to the axle that both have.

The answer is still no. The 2009 discovery is not what divB=0 excludes, so the realization of the Dirac monopole does not require any change to the laws of physics, seeing as it was predicted by the existing laws of physics. Is this sufficient, or do you need it written out yet again?

This is fiction I think this is something we can all agree on, as gravity and the normal force are two very different things. Again, this is fiction. This does not become true just because you say it. Earlier you mentioned an experiment. Have you done an actual experiment? Or are you just making this up?

You’ve been told a number of times to distinguish between the two different phenomena dubbed monopoles, but this does not follow; you have presented no physics argument leading from the premise to the assertion. This is a science discussion site. We request science discussion.

By experiment, you mean you’ve done this? Which is it? 80 N or 570 N? It won’t read both. Sure it does. You can’t do this without also being supported at some other point, like one foot on the scale and one on the floor. No, this makes no sense.

No, it’s not really like that at all. You might not like the book (my reaction to it was “meh”) but it has literary value and there are themes to discuss in the context of an English class. So your comparison to eating shit is, well, shit.

I think this is irrelevant, since I’m talking about wave functions, not vectors. I don’t know what you mean by space function.

I think it’s used because the inference is that you only have one observer, and that observer is comparing the two clocks. That observer can’t be in both frames, so the notion that clocks tick at 1 second per second in its own frame is true but moot.

I don’t know what you mean by that.

“common” in this case means “incorrect” It’s a shame the article only hints at this. It is common to confuse the HUP with the measurement effect, but they are distinct phenomena. The explanation is wrong. What is being described here is the measurement effect. Heisenberg himself made this mistake, in trying to discern why there would be this uncertainty The uncertainty arises because the wave functions of the associated pair of variables are Fourier transforms of each other. i.e. the wave function in momentum-space is a Fourier transform of the WF in position-space. The uncertainty occurs because of this relation.

“pollution from electricity” and “pollution from electric motors (or vehicles)” are not exactly the same thing. Motors and engines suffer from friction, which release pollutants, as do braking systems.

And? This seems to be an argument against your thesis. Further, running vs walking or jumping vs standing are more an issue of power, rather than force.

Then I’m guessing there’s not a rigorous mapping between them, so “energy not used/wasted on other things, so it’s available to do work” probably suffices

In order to do a calculation there are variables you need to hold constant. Otherwise you'll never have enough information to solve a problem — too many variables. The end states are equilibrium. Sometimes the path you take to get there matters. Other times it doesn't matter. Which free energy? Gibbs or Helmholtz? (again, it's a matter of which variables are held constant, and which change value)

I don't think smokestacks are "way up in the air" in terms of most environmental impact, especially global warming. They are up in terms of local impact. Also note that smokestacks generally deal with different kinds of pollutants than internal combustion engines. Gasoline is a liquid and coal, for example, is a solid. You get more particulates from the latter. (and, interestingly, particulates are apparently higher from EVs than IC engines) Smokestacks seem to be a way of polluting the air, water and land of the the people downwind of you, rather than the local folk.

A clock at the center of the earth will run at a different rate than one at the surface (and we have to account for elevation differences). And since all real clocks are going to be at/near the surface, that's the situation we usually look at.

No, I'm not going to watch videos without a decent summary of them, as required by the rules... ...and double so for obvious crackpottery.

An earthbound clock is not in an inertial frame, though there are many situations where one can treat it as inertial. But there are others where this will get you into trouble. You have to be careful, and know when the "inertial" assumption is valid. e.g. in the Hafele-Keating experiment, none of the clocks are in inertial frames, which is why the kinetic effects are different for the eastbound vs westbound clocks, relative to the earthbound clocks.

These are not equivalent motions, so this comparison is not particularly useful

On the contrary, what you posted is perfectly consistent with "no physicist in their right mind would expect the current SM to be the final word on the matter of particle physics. However, when such a more fundamental model is found, this still will not mean that SM is abandoned; after all, we know it works extremely well within the energy levels we can currently probe." Much like Newtonian works just fine at low speeds and one need not invoke Einstein's theory of relativity, and at macroscopic scales QM need not be invoked. One could just as easily say the lay of the land ca 1900, was no physicist in their right mind would expect Newtonian physics to be the final word on the matter of mechanics. However, when such a more fundamental model is found, this still will not mean that Newtonian physics is abandoned; after all, we know it works extremely well within the energy levels we can currently probe. And here it is more than 100 years later, and we see this is true: we still use Newtonian physics. We know that there's more to it at the scale of the small and fast.

This is the scenario that launched this part of the discussion: IOW, nothing is in motion in this situation.

In GR being stationary in a gravitational field is an accelerated frame. Your speed is zero but you are accelerating at g