Strange

I wouldn't say they clash. We can establish proofs in science. We can then sue that mathematics in physics. But that doesn't mean we can prove anything (with 100% certainty) in physics. But that doesn't undermine the mathematical proof. Why? Just because we can't know everything with certainty, doesn't mean we can't know anything with a very high level of certainty. (But what if the pigment is unstable and by the time you take the marble out, the colour has changed...) The whole point is that not everything is as binary as you initially claimed.

As you obviously don't consider me a reliable source of information, I will provide reliable references to answer your questions. They are a result of the quantisation of wave functions and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/ https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Manifestations That would be a corkscrew, I believe. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corkscrew There is nothing inside quarks (as far as we know) they are fundamental particles (along with electrons, photons, muons, etc): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle We know about their behaviour from theory and the experiments that confirm that theory. (You know: science) Not necessarily true. For example, neutrinos were first detected by radiochemical methods; the conversion fo chlorine atoms to argon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestake_experiment Detectors around the LHC use a variety of detectors that measure the properties of particles. Not all them use light: https://home.cern/science/experiments/how-detector-works Virtual particles are involved in pretty much all calculations. You have mentioned Feynman diagrams a few times, so here: " In QFT, rather than a Coulomb force described by a potential, the interaction corresponds to an exchange of virtual photons, which, in turn, propagate in space-time accompanied by virtual electron-positron pairs (figure 1(c))." From: https://cerncourier.com/fifty-years-of-the-renormalization-group/ See the circular paths and the wiggly lines between the electrons? Virtual particles. And they don't add any energy (because of energy conservation, remember) This was my point exactly! It looks like we agreed on something. Why are you even mentioning this? Did you make the mistake of thinking I was wrong about this when you agree with it? But you said: Where you seem to be saying that there are no photons associated with the Higgs (there are: the decay products) and that the photons had not been detected (they have). But maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. Because he was concerned that black holes could violate conservation of information. INFORMATION. Not energy. No one has ever said that black holes violate conservation of energy. Because quantum theory.

We were talking about science. Mathematics is different. In mathematics things can be proved to be true or false (or it can be proved that no such proof is possible). That's not far off. For example, one upon a time it was a "fact" that all swans were white. For millennia no one had seen anything other than white swans. There was no reason to think there was anything except white swans. And then people went to Australia and found black swans. Some "facts" are more certain than others but philosophers have been debating the nature of truth, reality and facts for thousands of years without coming up with any definitive answers. So there are no binary, black and white, answers to this meta -question, either.

Pretty much. People have fallen from airplanes without a parachute and survived. People have fallen a few feet and died. You can calculate the rough odds for falling a given height but you can't know for sure what will happen. This is how science works. Nothing is ever definitively proved. Every theory could, potentially, be overthrown by new evidence. Your binary approach just doesn't work.

That sounds a more rational and scientific approach than your initial "I either know it or don't know it."

From a purely mathematical point of view, it makes no difference. Any number is just as probable as any other. It's like buying a lottery ticket: the number 1,2,3,4,5,67 are just as likely (unlikely) as any given 7 "random" numbers. There are practical ways that just changing one of the digits could make a difference; for example if the person knew you had only changed one. Or if the others felt slightly stiffer (or were slightly shinier) because they were not used as much. Then they might realise that they only have to try 10 combinations and not all 10,000. Details like this can be crucial to cryptanalysis. For example, the chips used for hardware encryption (eg in credit cards) have to draw exactly the same current for every operation; if there are any differences it can give clues to the way the hardware works, which can help crack the encryption.

As far as I can see, it is both of these. It can't just be the air molecules colliding with the Earth's surface (or any other surface, come to that). Otherwise, why would the pressure be different at the top of a mountain? Air obviously does have weight (see also: hot-air/helium balloons). And remember that the air molecules collide with one another as well, and the weight of the air is what stops it flying off to space (and means that the pressure is higher at low altitudes).

While many life-saving medicines are "unnatural". It's so confusing ... (if you take a simplistic approach to life)

Nice. That is how the sources of gravitational waves have been (roughly) located.

Because they're like, you know, natural, man

And then the distance ladder for the full range of distances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

I have done it for you (the forum only allows you a limited time to edit posts).

The concept of evolution is that populations of organisms change over time. The theory of evolution describes the details of the process by which this happens. But note that "concept" is not really a well-defined term in science. So you could just look it up in any dictionary. For example: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concept The word theory has a quite specific meaning in science. In general use, it just means an idea or even guess about how things work. In science it is more specific; it means a detailed model (often mathematical) that explains how something happens and is supported by a large body of experimental or observational evidence. "Theoretical" is also in used science, particularly physics, to mean the branch of science that deals with theory (as opposed to experimental science, which is more practical). Results from theoretical physics are often labelled theories even before they have good evidence (the best known example may be "string theory").

Excellent point. Edit: surely that is only true if you are using omnidirectional receivers? If you have two telescopes, for example, that would give you position and distance ... wouldn't it? Also an excellent point. And, if we are considering all possibilities, if the source is at cosmological distance then you can determine the distance using redshift.

You can find the direction it is coming from (for example, from the direction you have to turn your telescope or detector) but you can't find the distance from a single destination. But if you can have two detectors at different locations then you can use the two directions to calculate the distance using triangulation. This is used for navigation, to find the distance to stars, etc.

Not everyone has a backyard. Not everyone with space has the time or ability. Are such farming methods able to support the world’s growing population? Please support your answer with real data rather than wishful thinking. It would be lovely. But is it practical?

Expansion of *space* The theoretical predictions were made nearly 100 years ago. They were first confirmed a few years later and have been repeatedly confirmed to greater accuracy many times since. That is why the Big Bang model is accepted.

Virtual particles cannot combine to form real particles. This is just nonsense. What is a “quark screw”? You can’t break quarks apart. Quarks are just as real and physical as any other fundamental particle. Photons can come from many sources. And how is the Higgs boson relevant? (it isn’t a charged particle anyway) Anyone can look back at your previous posts and see that you said otherwise. Not all particles are found because of light being emitted. Look at the table at the start of this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson It lists the particles that the Higgs decays into. It includes photons. And they have been detected. No violation of energy conservation has been observed.

They were not "discovered". They are part of quantum theory. Quantum theory makes testable predictions. Those predictions are tested in experiments. The results are consistent with the predictions, thus confirming the theory. That is how science works. Again, that recap of ways in which the effects of virtual particles have been confirmed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Manifestations You are certainly mistaken about it being a discovery (in the normal sense of that word - unless you mean "discovered in the theory").

Thanks for that. I wasn’t aware of that aspect of Newton’s physics. Interesting that he proposed an absolute velocity but also says it can never be measured! That site is, judging from the times I have looked at it, appears to be pretty sound.

Do you have any EVIDENCE for this idea?

Carnelian (and several other semi-precious stones) is a form of quartz. So is sand. So you might be better off starting with sand and adding the impurities (iron oxide?) that give carnelian its colour, melting it and then letting it cool very, very slowly so it grows crystals. I have no idea what you would end up with, though. Possibly just a lump of discoloured quartz. Also it would require extremely high temperatures and might cost more in electricity than just buying carnelian.

As others have noted, I would keep the snarky and condescending comments out if you want to be taken seriously. I would like to see the derivation/context of equation 1 ([math]\omega_2 = (\frac{r_1}{r_2})^2 \omega_1[/math]). I have looked through Halliday and Resnick, 9th Edition, and can't find anything like it. Your equation 10 uses the formula for linear kinetic energy, not rotational. I can't be bothered to work through the rest of it to see if this is the source of your error. You say that conservation of angular momentum makes predictions that contradict "reality" (your measured results, I assume). But you don't demonstrate this. Where are the experimental results?

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. @Mandlbaur note that you must present your idea here, not just provide a link to your paper. Please read the special rules that apply to this section of the forum.

There are no extra dimensions. Minkowski spacetime, and even GR, just use the four dimensions of space and time. Distances can change without requiring them to be made of rubber or anything else. Space-time is purely about geometry: distances and angles.