Strange

The only place I can see that anti-matter is mentioned is the Villata paper. Does anyone else provide any support for this idea?

It would need to be demonstrated along with convincing evidence, not just be a speculative idea. Yep. Totally deranged. Why would there be a conspiracy like that? It would make scientists jobs pointless. There is little point linking to a search. I couldn't see the text you quote in a couple fo the search results I looked at. And yet, here we are talking about him. There is no conspiracy.

But there is no reason to think that.

I think if someone showed that the Big Bang mode were wrong or unnecessary, that would guarantee them a Nobel Prize. I don't think anyone has received a Nobel Prize for purely speculative ideas. So maybe there were just better candidates in the years he was nominated. There He clearly wasn't anti-semitic, so I don't see how that could have played a role. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascual_Jordan

Ah, that makes sense. (Or rather it doesn't. ) I would say that c is just a conversion factor based on the arbitrary units we use for length, time, mass, energy, etc. So maybe the OP should be asking if everything is made of causality!

I have enormous enthusiasm for the CERN ALPHA project! Although it will almost certainly confirm the fact that antimatter behaves the same as matter, there is a small chance it won't, which is always exciting.

Just came across this, which might be of interest: http://wall-ye.com

It applies to stationary objects with mass. For moving or massless things (eg photons) you need the full form of the equation: [math]E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2[/math] (where p is momentum) Not everything is made of electromagnetic waves. I'm not sure why you would think that. For example, electrons are made of "electron waves" (if they are "made of" anything). Neutrinos don't even interact electromagnetically.

I got that. Coffeesippin, obviously didn't. There are a great many people who maybe should have got Nobel Prizes but didn't. Often for reasons that have nothing to do with the science. However, as far as I know, no one has ever received a Nobel Prize for a hypothesis that hasn't been confirmed. Which is almost certainly the reason that Jordan never got one for this idea. Whether he should have got one for his other work ...who knows. There are a limited number of prizes and an almost unlimited number of deserving recipients. But while this might be an interesting discussion, we are getting off topic and if we are not careful, the mods will tell us off! (It might be an interesting topic for another thread: who'd should have got Nobels and why didn't they...)

It depends which science fiction book or movie you are talking about. They all invent different answers that are appropriate for the story they are telling. If you are making something up, you can choose the rules. But it is best to make them internally consistent.

Well, I don't know much more detail I'm afraid. There will be circuitry on the chip as well as the mechanical structures. They will control the vibration of the mechanism and, presumably, charge the capacitors to measure the changing capcatince value. But I don't know exactly how they do that (without trying to find a detailed data sheet of the device).

So that article may have been irrelevant, but it wasn't accusing Jordan of anti-semitism.

That article is suggesting that anti-semitism by the Nobel Committee against Einstein may have played a role in the fact he didn't get a second Nobel Prize. I don't see where Jordan comes into it. Was he on the Nobel Prize Committee?

What are you seeing? Dreams? Science fiction movies? Hallucinations? What is “the potion method”?

What is true? Like most of your threads this seems to be largely fantasy. Citation needed.

! Moderator Note Don't hijack threads with off-topic and speculative ideas.

So just make a more precise statement if you feel it is necessary. Why drag the thread off topic. Rajiv has some much more basic concepts to understand before the sort of details you are talking about. It is filled by many fields.

I think this is a slightly bizarre bit of pedantry. It is pretty clear what it means.

I just came back to post something about the three modes, but it would have been from memory so I'm glad you found that!

Form this pic of a TravelMate keyboard, it looks like Fn+F11 might do it:

No one says we know anything for sure. No one says we know everything. By chance, this article just came out: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-are-the-smallest-particles-of-all-truly-fundamental-bb56aa55be3f

The Higgs boson is not the most massive particle known.

Why would you think it is "the ultimate particle"? What does "ultimate particle" mean? They already have. You are arguing from a position of extreme ignorance. And idiotic statement would be to say "we don't know anything"

Because you said: (1) "dark matter" and (2) "dark energy". How is that not two (2) things?

Yes. It has been know for more than 50 years.