swansont

Drag is a force, which means an acceleration. If freely-traveling photons experienced drag, they would have to slow down. They don’t. Another option is to have some kind of thrust to counter the drag. That would mean a loss of energy (work is being done), which doesn’t happen. No drag.

Aluminum has a number density of 0.1 moles/cm^3 (2.7 g/cm^3 vs 27g atomic weight) You’re asking for a density 100x higher. Not happening.

No, it was done by you: “You failed to acknowledge that some force must be countering the normal force from the rock. Those two forces satisfy the given criteria.” The force that counters the normal force is the gravitational force. That does not make them an action/reaction pair. What relevance does this have to action/reaction?

Space does have drag, because there will be some small amount of matter in it. Drag implies an object would continue to slow down. That would apply to objects with mass, but photons are massless; even in a uniform medium they will maintain a constant speed. In a vacuum, it’s c.

Jackson vs Johnson can be very confusing

That puts you 4 orders of magnitude short No, don’t assume that. Go find the ionization energy of Argon.

Why is this speculations? Seems to me this is a matter of established physics. Anyway, 10^31 electrons/cm^3 probably isn’t anywhere close to happening. That’s ~10 million moles. How do you get that kind of density?

Sorry - Overton window? That’s a political term. How is that relevant? And it’s not “up to 36” The number they arrive at is a lower limit, and that number is

Why is it that in the volleyball example, you apparently agree that the reaction force of the gravitation force is another gravitational force, and the reaction force to the normal force is another normal force, and yet insist the for the derrick, it's a normal force paired with a gravitational force? Can you explain your inconsistency?

bryozoa has been banned for racist commentary

Yeah, pretty much. The south seceded to preserve slavery (or rather the power it enabled). The North eventually facilitated the end of slavery but that was not the primary goal of the war.

Or did they, after the fact?

British grabbing someone’s cultural work of art and doing what they damn well please with it seems pretty on-brand and in keeping with tradition.

Yes, and objects are comprised of many, many atoms. It's irrelevant to this particular conversation. The object is rigid, and can be easily modeled. The fact that it's an extended object means the possibility of torques, but the acceleration of it will be the result of the net force. I ignored because it wasn't the example I was discussing. It's a red herring you introduced into the conversation. You seem to introduce new examples when you want to avoid admitting you're wrong about a different example. The act is getting tired. I don't acknowledge it because it's irrelevant. That pair of forces only satisfy two of the criteria, so they are not an action reaction pair. The other criteria become irrelevant at that point, since all four must be satisfied. Once you find one that isn't, you know the answer (well, not you, specifically, but the colloquial you) Again, I ignore it because it's not what we were discussing. I'm ignoring billions of other example we were not discussing, too. Quit changing the subject. .<sigh> OK, change the subject AGAIN. What about the volleyball diagram? It clearly explains what the action/reaction pairs are. It doesn't pair a normal force with the gravitational force. So you found a badly written example. Great. You've shown that somebody else out there doesn't know what identical means, or has forgotten that forces are a vector. If it's a strawman, why do you keep confusing the two? No. It's your claim, and you are increasingly not worth the effort. Obstinance and ignorance are not a good combination. Unique case? What's unique and what's ignored? Yes, gravity. I didn't say it was ignored, I said it can't be ignored. I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse when you do this. Enough information for what? You didn't pose a physics problem here that needed to be solved. It was just identifying action/reaction, and the identity of those forces doesn't change. They use 4 diagrams because they are explaining more than the impact. Only one of the drawings depicts the impact and it shows the action/reaction forces. As I have been saying: ball hits bat, bat hits ball. One can say it depicts two FBDs, and notice how there's only one force on each object. Nothing is in equilibrium, because equilibrium is not required to identify action/reaction force pairs.

I didn’t say no interference. I said no pattern from one photon. I explicitly pointed this out, hoping to avoid confusion. Oh well. The rest of my post explains the pattern with the MWI No, you just failed to read/understand the explanation.

and, as I said earlier, there is absorption (and possibly transmission), so you eventually run out of photons. In a good cavity, the lifetime of a photon is still much, much less than a second. good cavity, 2 ns lifetime:

You don’t get an interference pattern from one photon. (one photon is not a pattern) The MWI explanation would be that if you sent 100 photons (individually) you would have multiple universes, each with their own distribution of where the photons went. Some universes would end up with same distribution, of course. For example, let’s pretend there’s two options - diffract left or right. One photon gives you two universes - one where the photon went left, one right. After another, you have 4 - one for LL, one for RR, and LR and RL, so two with one in each direction. And so on, and so on.

I thought you were referring to multiple reflections.(you said flat mirrors) But for lenses and concave mirrors, you never physically have an object or image at an infinite distance. That’s a mathematical issue. There is no physical realization. Nothing that can actually exist in the real world.

Who knows what he meant. Despite having “the best words“ he seemingly can’t unambiguously vocalize support for equality for any group that has been subject to systemic oppression. I’m sure his staff will spin this statement to make it sound more positive, or distract from it, if they haven’t done so already

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum, not a headhunter agency

No, you will eventually run out of photons as there is absorption

Two mirrors is not infinite. Please don’t make me drag this out of you. Post your example, or step off

Don’t leave us in suspense

"Supercooled" has a meaning in science, but in my work we regularly get Rb gas down to a temperature of a couple of microKelvins (and true in the article, before getting colder and then condensing into a BEC), and it remains a gas. Meanwhile, the melting point of Rb is a little under 40 ºC. So the answer to your question is yes.

What, pray tell, is hyperdimensional theory?