Strange

! Moderator Note This forum is not for you to advertise your fundraising.

An instantaneous (or, at least, rapid) release of pressure is pretty much the definition of an explosion.

Note that any so-called paradoxes in quantum theory are only apparent paradoxes; in other words, they appear paradoxical because Theydon't behave like classical systems. There are not any real paradoxes. I don't know whose belief that is, but it isn't physics. This violates at least two rules of the forum.

Do you mean 500 km3 or (500 km)3 ? Depends how you release the pressure. If you do it slowly, there will be no explosion. Either 6x1011 kg (more than the total mass of humans on the planet) or 1.6x1017 kg (about the same density as a neutron star). The total mass of the Earth's atmosphere is about 5x1018 kg. Comparisons from this handy page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(mass) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(density)?oldid=737637927

It does increase the time taken, because it the light takes a longer path (not because it slows down): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay Very good (both the sentiment and the way it is expressed!)

That sounds similar to a few other ideas, such as Causal Dynamical Triangulation: "Near the Planck scale, the structure of spacetime itself is supposed to be constantly changing due to quantum fluctuations and topological fluctuations. CDT theory uses a triangulation process which varies dynamically and follows deterministic rules, to map out how this can evolve into dimensional spaces similar to that of our universe. The results of researchers suggest that this is a good way to model the early universe[citation needed], and describe its evolution. Using a structure called a simplex, it divides spacetime into tiny triangular sections. A simplex is the multidimensional analogue of a triangle; a 3-simplex is usually called a tetrahedron, while the 4-simplex, which is the basic building block in this theory, is also known as the pentachoron." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation What do you mean by "implementation of spacetime"? Do you mean attempts to explain spacetime at a "lower" level, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Quantum_gravity or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Theories_of_gravitation ? You need to determine what predictions your model makes that are different from other theories, and then find a test or observation that will match one or other of the predictions. (This is why you need a mathematical model.) I suspect that, at the moment, your idea is too vague to be testable.

Wikipedia has a list of nearly 20 interpretations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics Maybe one of them is better? (Whatever "better" means; I guess like all analogies some work better for some cases but others are better in other cases.)

The nearest thing is Power over Ethernet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_over_Ethernet) which is not the same thing at all.

Yes. (I thought that might be what you meant...)

To put it another way, a single photon can have any energy (the energy level is not quantised) but that photon is indivisible (ie. is a quantum).

That is pretty much what says. (What amazed me when looking for those definitions is how bad most explanations of acceleration are; even the ones aimed at children tend to be incredibly confusing and bury a simple concept in all sorts of irrelevant detail.)

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/one-dimensional-motion/acceleration-tutorial/a/acceleration-article https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/acceleration.htm https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/2-4-acceleration/

You need either a moving coil or a moving agent to generate electricity. There are very low power devices that generate their own power the way (for example, some electronic watches charge the batteries from the movement of the wearer's arm). What is a magnetic sheet?

No it isn't: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/status-update Oh grow up. That was a training exercise. (And 4 years ago.)

A magnetic field does not "contain" electricity. A magnetic field is generated by a changing electric current. An electric current is generated by a changing magnetic field. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html If you were to move a conductor through the Earth's magnetic field, you could generate a tiny voltage. But the Earth's magnetic field is very weak so it is not a practical way of generating electricity. A magnetic field always starts and ends at the poles. That is why you can never get an isolated north pole. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq2.html#c2

I don't know what "approach zero in all respects" means. It is not clear why angular momentum is relevant to a gravitational well (apart from the fact that, in GR, it implies more energy). I assume by "the curvature of the well becomes a right angle" you mean that the slope of the curve becomes 1 (vertical). Except it never does, it gets ever closer to it. And the mass would not change. So, yes, I think it would help if you showed the math.

Sorry, the notation wasn't very clear. That was supposed to be J.s (joule-seconds) so the units work out as you say.

Oops. I misread that. But it would take energy to turn a photon because they do have momentum.

I thought you were looking for something with minimum mass; the Higgs is really massive. Only the top quark is more massive, I think. Why?

There is something called the "perfect Copernican principle" (or something like that), which says that we are not in a privileged place in time, either. This was one of the reasons that people were keen on (quasi) steady state models. But these are just principles; i.e. working assumptions. The "perfect" Copernican principle is falsified by the evidence.

It is not absolute. There is no such thing as "absolute" time; it doesn't exist.

Well, not necessarily turn into a photon, but that is a good way of understanding why massless objects must move at the fastest speed possible. Yes, all massless particles travel at c. It has energy as an intrinsic property, proportional to its frequency. I'm not sure that this can really be described as kinetic energy (mv2/2) because photons all travel at the same speed and they don't have mass.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269318300637

Really? But, anyway, the age of the universe is relative: relative to now and our chosen frame of reference. As that is not what GR says, the misinterpretation would appear to be yours.

I think the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds are the nearest (dwarf) galaxies to the pole that are visible with the naked eye. Apart from our own galaxy, of course. With a telescope, there would be many more distant galaxies closer to the pole. http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/cm6.html http://www.patrickcullis.com/south-pole-night.html