swansont

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 Has the Heisenberg uncertainty principle been revoked?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.

You claimed your post would make sense on this day.

If by cynically dishonest you mean “do they think their supporters are this stupid” I think the answer is yes. It’s been obvious for a long time that a large swath of the population are far too credulous regarding lies made by politicians and the “news” channels that amplify them. The issue here is blaming the existence of renewable sources for the shortfall, and using this as a talking point to not “go green” while ignoring the failure of gas and oil. The issue is not having properly protected/winterized the infrastructure. Canada, Norway, Sweden, even Antarctica have wind turbines that work just fine. edit to add link: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/blaming-the-wind-for-the-mess-in-texas-is-ridiculous

An exploding star is not an analogue of the big bang

Ecology more than geology, but...so what? We have a demonstrable impact on the earth. Baldly asserting the opposite isn't based on evidence.

! Moderator Note "Eternal inflation is a hypothetical inflationary universe model" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation IOW, not suited for replies in mainstream science. You can, however, discuss its merits and drawbacks here in this thread.

All points. Other than local motion, the expansion is there for every point.

I remember a documentary where the claim was injecting you with window cleaner cause the brain to die last, and it could be preserved in a vat.