Mellinia

Then why is there a maximum x for a test photon? You have not explained your maths with physic concepts.

Does the wavelength of a particle correspond to it's volume?

By containing the light and heat, we mean to completely enclose it in a space where no light and heat will escape so that we can fully utilise every energy available. The sun just radiates the light and heat away in the way of photons.

what is x?

The way how light and heat is radiating from the sun should show that the energy is not contained in a way that can be controlled by us. (hint: there was no control)

Extrapolating that logic, you have just shown that a 5 megaton lorry has a smaller size than me, or that a proton has lesser size than an electron. Are you sure about that?

This (from the page, http://theparkesprinciple.com/html/creating_life.html) should tell you that the author does not have any understanding of physics concepts, nor, chemistry concepts, and the most important, biological concepts of photosynthesis by algae. I guess that answers your question. No.

Electrons are not EM waves and the energy provided by the battery does not reach the ionization energy of the metals. Doing a simple approximation to see if two 1.5 V batteries can provide enough energy to release the electrons from the atom, From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molar_ionization_energies_of_the_elements The first ionization energy of Copper(the material of the wire) is 745.5 kJ/mol and second ionization energy is 1957.9 kJ/mol . by conservation of energy, (work done by battery ) =ionisation energy qV= E_1 (1.6*10^-19 C) V=745.5*10^3 J / 6.02*10^23 particles (for the first ionisation energy) Which gives about V=7.7 volts, something your apparatus did not provide, and this is the work done just on one copper atom, neglecting the electric potential of other protons and electrons, and this energy is just enough to provide it to escape the pull of it's parent proton.

Exactly. In metals, you have free electrons to conduct electricity, but in air, you have only minimal chance to meet an electron (or ion) that would help you. You might want to check on corona effect. In fact, ice, concrete, plastic cannot conduct electricity under normal conditions as they lack free electrons.

Internal resistance may be one factor, chaps. Cheers.

no neutral atoms?

I was hoping you meant intuition, but you'll still maths to verify. In which case you don't go down the wrong path.

What did you mean by magnetic wire? i think you mean what happens if you coil a solenoid, into another solenoid? I don't think it would deviate much from the helix model though, if the radius of the original solenoid was very small, compared to the bigger solenoid

You may see it as a change in the radius and number of coils of the solenoid and do the corresponding adjustments to your equation.

You could also use the work-kinetic energy theorem and skip all those steps. E_ktotal = W_total 1/2 m (v^2-u^2) = FS

A free body force analysis on the earth might have to take into account of buoyancy caused by air, but in free space, we feel the effects of gravity all the same. I'm praying that this would not be another troll thread though.

Buoyancy force is not a field. What produces the effect of gravity on us, in your claim that gravity is a pushing force?

One of Newton's genius was in that he managed to use mathematics as a tool to explain physics. Calculus is created and it can explain Kepler's laws of planetary motion and predict that the gravitational force falls off as the square of the distance between the center of masses. In the case of Kepler, it's observation first. Since Kepler already has telescopes and massive amount of data. In the other, it's mathematics first. He couldn't really measure gravity on another planet at that time, right?

Maths is not rigid. New mathematical tools are found to explain physics. And it's definitely not scary. You don't find something you got use to, scary, anyway. It's just that it's alien to approach physics, and indeed sciences from mathematics. It's not strange since once the maths is out, it might be able to point out some things that we may have neglected. I believe that we are able to agree that human error is way much larger than computational error? A fine and simple example is the displacement current predicted by Maxwell during his formulation of the classical EM equations. The predicted displacement current was only proven a few years after Maxwell passed away by Hertz, in the form of radio waves. At times when we lack the equipment or ability to observe phenomena, mathematics is the way we can explore uncharted theory of science.

That's theology for you. If this world isn't predictable to some extent, then the scientific method, is void. because it ain't predictable.

Ever squirted a pimple? As Ophiolite said, something that looks like a crater, does not mean that it is a crater. The chemical composition of the rocks and soil around the volcano should match.

You might need to state the iridium levels of the soil around the volcano to reassert your claim.

How about you shape a knife out of steel and electroplate it with iridium instead....

How would the direction determine the amount of charge? If so, since there is a fundamental unit of charge(electron/quark), I would expect to see a particular direction, when I try to change it, the charge carried cannot be reduced further. However, there can be infinite directions. I'm interested to see how this explanation would, on the macroscopic level, link Gauss' Law of Electric fields and mass.

You might want to add a pic for this. Though what's your question?