imatfaal

Just writing a very similar comment. This is, of course, why I critiqued my initial response - to get it over and done with. BTW MonDie - Silly complaints (as per mine above) aside I thought your definition of a logical fallacy in another thread was spot on, well worded, and refreshingly direct. Although, in the spirit of this thread, I would quibble with your use of the word "premises" and use "argument" instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

1. Missing word. Probably can, could, should, or might.a 2. The definite article before "religion" is inelegant. One could use the unadorned word religion, "a religion" or "their religion"; the OP's usage gives the inkling of a pre-existing mention of a particular religion (directly or indirectly) which had not actually been manifested. This writer would utilise "which" in preference to "that".b 3. This Sentence is confusing and ambiguous. Typographical errors. 4. The meaning of "Pro/Anti arguments" is uncertain and the phrase itself is cumbersome.d 5. The claim that a point is interesting is subjective and just word-filler.e a. No main verb b. Use of silly words when simple ones would suffice c. No explanation or precision - merely negative comments d. Judging as an essay in school/university rather than a post on a science forum e. Subjective. Also makes no valid point and is just filler And there will be lots of mistakes in the above. I haven't time to check as dinner is about to burn I think it is a really bad idea - any paragraph can be criticised; the benefit to the community at large is vanishingly small and the potential for offence is large.

I think the sort of thing all physicists take as axiomatic are the consistency of mathematical results and reasoning, the existence of empirical evidence and the possibility of obtaining same, the objectivity (or at least inter-subjectivity in a weak sense) of experiment, and perhaps the theoretical repeatability of results (if not the actual). Within sub-disciplines more concrete things would be taken as axiomatic - the invariance of the speed of light, the cosmological principle, the use of statistics and probability, and the rules of conservation/symmetry. The more applied the area of research the more things would be taken as given

Phi - About the same energy as Hiroshima atomic bomb - that high up in the atmosphere who knows what would happen

wheel - can you describe the simplest wheel that you believe will be overbalanced and thus rotate permanently? Then a member may be able to take the time to actually prove it will not work - frankly the latest with 14 (?) moving parts will also not work but the maths to show it would be incredibly longwinded and boring

I remember a drunken lunchtime discussion with disputants claiming that we would never move to litres etc for beer. The main reason was that "a pint" was just too integral to the language and no one would ever say "fancy a demi?" "a demi of ordinary please" "just down the local for a demi with John" etc. The Guardian reading Liberal pinkos disagreed and wanted to embrace the continental colloquialisms whilst the UKIP/Brexit/Dinosaur part of the debate all agreed vocally that we would never use the term demi instead of pint - it was too stupid and we don't talk like that. They then spoilt the argument by asking "anyone want a swift half for the road?"

"Also is there a preview button I'm missing?" - yes. If you click "more reply options" you get more reply options (not surprising really), ability to attach files, add polls, and post preview. The latex is a bit shonky here at times but not too bad. There is a tutorial over in maths and people like Sensei and Mordred seem to have Latex as a second language (or third or fourth) so you can always ask questions in Suggestions Forum

No - but I hope that I am not someone who does not love poetry

whoosh! Work for Greek company, been to Lesbos more times than I can remember, and can read just enough Greek script to recognize names, places etc.

Groan. Took me a while to get that. BTW - you are upstaging me on poetry concerning the Pierian Spring :-D

There is the imperial gallon (what Brits used to measure petrol and stuff like that in) and there is the US gallon (which the Mercans still use to measure petrol etc.) The imperial gallon is 4.55 litres. The US gallon is 3.79 litres The cup is either 236 millilitres or 240 millilitres depending on your exact definition ( US customary or US official). So there are four different "numbers of cups per gallon" - however only an American would use the term and in that case there are 16 cups per gallon

There are different gallons? And those on the actual continent of Europe use the fiendishly clever SI where none of that is necessary (in the UK we are stuck in between with grams of sugar, pints of milk, and gallons of beer (and they are different and strangely big gallons)

[latex]t_L=\frac{1}{H_0} \int_{0}^{z}\frac{dz'}{(1+z')\sqrt {\Omega(1+z')^3+\Omega_k(1+z')^2+\Omega_{\lambda}}}[/latex] Just checking our latex is working - I presume this is the equation you were referring to? If you are using a latex generator rather than just typing it in the old fashioned way maybe it is putting in some spare characters

[latex]t_L=\frac{1}{H_0} \int_{0}^{z}\frac{dz'}{(1+z')\sqrt {\Omega(1+z')^3+\Omega_k(1+z')^2+\Omega_{\lambda}}}[/latex]

Our sense of smell is also massively under used. Feynman taught himself to use his sense of smell more (he was a bit of a mad genius though) - there is an account in one of his autobiographies "Surely you're joking Mr Feynman" I think

You misunderstand - it is not necessary that you be correct but you must follow the rules. If you provide testable scientific ideas, answer questions, and don't try to rewrite good well-tested ideas on the back of a hunch then the threads will stay open. The stream of "why so and so is wrong", "something or another properly explained", "new proof for this and that" is just an exercise in futility unless founded in either experimental data or in the current canon of knowledge. and what Ophiolite just said.

Some photons are - others require a decent amount of lead to stop them. Our atmosphere tends to allow in photons of visible light - but tends to trap photons of infrared (this warms us up).

! Moderator Note Done. This thread is falling well below the levels we require for the Speculations forum. It is based on misconception and ignorance of present theory and the OP has confirmed that no mathematical back up will be forth coming. Basic questions are being ignored and posts with refutations / suggestions are not engaged with. Thread Locked. Do not open a thread on the same topic; you may request a new thread when you have significantly more detail to your argument.

So how long before I can get "if it bleeds we can kill it" out of my head?

The solutions to Einsteins field equations are what are known as vacuum solutions and these are solutions which only deal with the volume with no matter (there is a field but no sources of the field) - ie the most famous one the Schwartzchild Solution is the behaviour in the volume of space outside a non-rotating sphere; it does not deal with that volume of space within which there is matter. So to an extent your question is answered by the fact that currently general relativity only deals with bodies which are the only things in the universe

Gravity is a force which is conservative and cannot be harnessed in the same manner as a solar cell converts light energy to electrical energy (you use up the light energy where as gravity is always present). Lifting anything against gravitational force requires exactly the same energy as you would get back in an ideal situation when it falls - you cannot shortcut this. You will need an external energy source to keep it spinning In a real world situation you will have frictional loses that takes you way below unity - and probably your wheel would spin for much less time than a simple well balanced bicycle wheel. Each moving part has frictional loses and will heat up a little bit - you are just multiplying those losses

As I thought - alpha is just the phase. It is the common usage of wave equation in complex form if W is a plane wave moving in space x and evolving in time t with A as peak amplitude k as the wave number little omega as the angular frequency and alpha as the initial phase you get [latex]W(x,t) = A \left(Cos(kx-\omega t + \alpha)\right) [/latex] You can rewrite this in complex form as [latex]Z(x,t) = A e^{-i(kx-\omega t +\alpha)}[/latex] As the wave moves throught space and time you get a sinusoidal variation - but you need to know what the initial phase angle was; and you can note that if you set x (distance) and t (time) to zero you get just alpha ie the initial phase angle. Remember that adding a phase angle seems to push the wave form back to the left on a plot

h/t Mark Longoria

your slash before the frac is the wrong way around [latex] s^{\frac{1}{2}} [/latex] click on mine to see difference

I am so disappointed - I said your user name once in my head and had a lightbulb moment; now I find out that I have deluded myself for years.