swansont

I’ve seen this phrasing before and it annoys me, since it sounds like it’s referencing a scientific principle rather than an allowable approximation. It’s just that the difference is so small it can be ignored. You’re releasing or absorbing energy on the scale of eV instead of MeV, and c^2 is of order GeV per amu. So it’s nanograms per mole. Don’t need to account for it. Mass isn’t a conserved quantity. Full stop.

exuczen banned as a sockpuppet of Bart, bart2, ravell

! Moderator Note Kind of an odd observation made after a handful of posts. Unless you’ve been here under another name

Prediction requires theory. Experiment can lead to formation of a theory, but is not itself predictive. If you want to call it omphaloskepsis that’s fine with me, but you set out framing this in scientific terms, so that would be a rather drastic course correction - an admission that you can’t make a scientific case here.

We’re looking for something a little more rigorous than analogies. Is there any predictive power to this framework?

So, nothing authoritative. Just some guy on a different discussion board, being partly wrong. And nothing for the second quote.

! Moderator Note Threads merged Deja vu all over again

! Moderator Note Threads merged. One per topic, please

A charged particle in a B field will move in a circular (or spiral) path. The force is perpendicular to the velocity (F = qv x B). No work.

He’s already made campaign promises based on it, and it’s not like he can stick to a script, so good luck avoiding all the hot-button issues.

! Moderator Note Advertising is not permitted. Link removed.

Thus far there is zero content that complies with the speculations rules regarding a new idea, so there’s nothing to stitch together

! Moderator Note You are free to ask questions about dark matter, but if you have no model to present, then please refrain from mentioning your “theory”

Field lines aren’t physically real, they are a convenient way of describing the value of the field, like elevation contour lines on a map. Interaction with field lines is just a way of looking at an equation the depends on E or B, or on a derivative, which is sometimes referred to as “cutting” a flux line. It’s conceptual only.

I think this is moot; this isn’t a lecture, it’s a discussion forum. I think it’s an unreasonable expectation. I don’t see where you’ve typed in all that many equations in these discussions. I wonder, if you had done so, if your typing skill would stand up to the same scrutiny and criticism you have offered up.

Much the same way you “fix” a pet

But if they have positive energy, when they annihilate you have energy where you had none before, which means energy is not conserved. It’s not what I require, it’s what the description of Hawking radiation requires. Not sure where this comes from We’re talking about the virtual pair, though, without other constraints. IIRC the magnitude of the gravitational PE is less than the mass energy in this situation, so one particle escaping has to result in a loss of energy from the BH. The coordinate system isn’t going to matter (it can’t; you can’t have something that happens in one frame be impossible in another) It’s not a weird, fake theory. This is a common description of Hawking radiation. https://www.sciencealert.com/hawking-radiation# http://www.physics.hmc.edu/student_projects/astro62/hawking_radiation/radiation.html

Do you have a model and/or evidence for this?

You learned that virtual particles have positive energy? What happens when the pair annihilates?

I took that as differentiating between the particle and the antiparticle. matter vs antimatter.

You don’t quote (including enough for proper context) or link to this claim. That’s what I mean by not bringing the receipts. The mention that I saw was here, in the context of Hawking radiation, and the particle that reduces the mass of the BH is indeed associated with a negative energy, because it’s a virtual particle/antiparticle pair. That’s why the mass decreases, and how you get real particles emitted as radiation.

At least two of the objections above are likely typos; = instead of + and n instead of N are issues of not hitting the “shift” key at the right time. If you can’t be charitable about typos, you might not have the right temperament for online discussion. I can’t fathom how one gets from that to “pseudoscience” And as I’ve suggested before, complaining without bringing the receipts? No. It’s just whining.

What’s the made-up part? What is your support for the claim? And what is your definition of pseudoscience? It must differ from mine.

Horrible89 banned as a sockpuppet of ImplicitDemands

As I said, we use the earth because that’s where we are. That makes it best purely from a practical standpoint, much like choosing a particular frame of reference makes it easier to solve a problem. You won’t get a different answer by using another frame, as Mordred notes above.