Strange

It is a subset of that tree. If the subset has practical uses then, obviously, the tree has practical uses. Otherwise it is like saying a fruit tree has has no practical use because we can't use the whole tree, only the fruit. Of course it isn't irrelevant. It is yet another example of a practical use. Which you have, again, just rejected out of hand. ! Moderator Note That is soapboxing, which is against the rules of the forum.

Virtual particle pairs do not result in the emission of a photon. They appear and just disappear - no net change in energy. Did you even read the linked explanation of the effects that virtual particles cause? None of them are the direct observation of virtual particles. None of them involve the emission of photons. Read the articles provided. Yes they are. They are an essential consequence of the quantisation of fields. These are two different examples of virtual particles. Science know a lot. Based on theory and evidence. Not just making stuff up as you seem to do. This is not true. There are many ways of detecting particles. Very few of them depend on detecting light. It came to be a thing because, firstly, it is what is predicted by theory. And, secondly, the predictions of theory have been tested by experiment and confirmed. That is how science works. Because, in quantised systems, the lowest possible energy (when there is nothing there; called the "vacuum energy") is not quite zero. So there is always a small amount of energy which can be "borrowed" for a short time to create virtual particle pairs. The more massive the particles, the less time they are allowed exist for (because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle).

Let me have a go ... The most well-known (among engineers, anyway) use of Fourier transforms is to transform between the frequency domain and the time domain. What this means is that if we have a signal that varies in time, such as a sine wave, then we can transform it to the list of frequencies that make up the signal. In the case of a single sine wave, this will be a single frequency (the frequency of oscillation of the wave). But ... even though we think of a pure sine wave as corresponding to a single frequency (or note, like C#) that is only true if the sine wave is infinitely long (started an infinite time ago and ends an infinite time in the future). A real sine wave starts when we turn the oscillator on (or play the instrument) and ends some time later. When we analyse what this means in terms of frequency, it turns out that we have to add extra frequencies to represent the fact that there is not signal in the past and none in the future. You can think of this as adding extra sine waves of different frequencies to cancel the signal out at those times. So, when we do a Fourier transform of a real-world signal we find that it contains many other frequencies. It turns out that for a sine wave of long duration all these other frequencies are closely bundled around the signal frequency and fall off quickly outside that range. For a sine wave that only lasts a short time, there is a wider range of frequencies around the signal frequency. So, we can either have a signal which is tightly defined in the frequency domain but is extended in the time domain, or we can have a signal that is tightly defined in the time domain but then spreads out in the frequency domain. We find the same thing when we look at pairs like momentum and position: if you pin one down, the other must be spread out.

Neither of these is true. And, given MigL’s post, can you explain what exactly you mean by “random particle pairs”? Virtual particles are part of quantum theory and have various measurable effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Manifestations I was not talking about particles coming from nothing, that is why I said “real particles”. Real particles annihilate to create photons. Virtual particles do not.

A good clarification. Also a good point

It goes back to Galileo. He came up with the thought experiment of being in a boat on a perfectly smooth sea with no land visible (he had to use the technology of his day!). If you saw another ship, you would not be able to tell if you were moving and the other ship was stationary or vice versa. (Newton was born the same year that Galileo died. Coincidence?)

I googled finite element simulation magnetic field and found a few examples: http://www.femm.info/wiki/HomePage https://quickfield.com/glossary/magnetic-simulation.htm https://uk.comsol.com http://getdp.info https://caelinux.com/CMS3/ I don't know if anyone of them will do what you want.

I'm not sure how this is relevant, or even what you are saying. There are no black holes at the LHC, obviously. So what? Of course energy is conserved in the lab. Why do you think it isn't? This is to vague to answer, really. Virtual particles do not result in the creation of real photons. A matter particle and an antimatter particle can annihilate to create two photons. In that case energy is conserved because the mass of the particles is the same as the energy of the photons. This has nothing to do with black holes. Nothing has changed. This has been known for about 100 years. There is a suggestion (hypothesis) that a quantum fluctuation could have triggered the creation of the Big Bang. In that model, the energy of the universe comes from the collapse of a "false vacuum". Hawking radiation has never been "retracted". Hawking did not come up with the holographic principle. There is no connection between Hawking radiation and the holographic principle (apart from the fact they both involve black holes).

Nonsense. If for example Endercreeper01 said "I believe in God" then he would have mentioned the supernatural. Why is man-made not natural? Mankind is part of nature after all. Does this mean you are superstitious because you just used the word supernatural? Irony is dead.

You have been given several explanations before. The one provided by beecee is good: Or here is Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation Energy conservation is not violated because the mass lost by the black holes is the same as the energy radiated away. You say the book you checked (Hidden Reality) also says energy is conserved. Do you now concede you were mistaken? And here is the article I posted earlier on the source of quantum fluctuations: Or: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation Energy conservation is not violated because the particles only exist for a short time. Because conservation of energy is a fundamental aspect of the universe. Basically it means that things behave the same way at different times. (Noether's theorem shows that conservation laws are equivalent to symmetries. In the case of energy, it is equivalent to time translation.) We have found no examples of energy not being conserved. You clearly have some gaps in your knowledge and some serious misunderstandings. That is OK, as long as you are willing to learn (we all have to learn - that is why a lot of us are on this forum). Perhaps spend a bit more time asking questions, and less making assertions. If you can't easily find a source that confirms what you think, then maybe consider that you could be mistaken.

! Moderator Note There is no science here. Please try harder.

As beecee has introduced cosmological redshift (and the associated loss of energy) it is worth noting that a similar argument applies in this case. But in the case of cosmological redshift, it is not the difference in speed that is the cause of the redshift, it is the difference in "scale factor" (ie how much the universe has expanded). Basic thermodynamics tell us that as the universe expands, it cools. And so the photons we receive from the distant (early) universe are "cooler" (lower energy) than when they were emitted. The energy hasn't "gone" anywhere; it just has a different value in different frames of reference.

There are a couple of differences from classical spin. The first is that a classical object can only have spin around one axis. But we can (by using entangled particles) measure quantum spin in two different axes. The second is that the value of the spin (up or down, + or -) is not just unknown before we measure it, but is actually not determined until we measure it. And, particles are modelled as zero-size particles so physical spin doesn't really make sense,

The mathematics says that energy is conserved. It is up to you, as the person making the claim that energy is not conserved, to provide evidence or a reference to that effect. ! Moderator Note No more "go to a library" or "I heard it on TV" or "watch this video". Provide a link, now, to a written document that says energy is not conserved.

The important point here is that energy, like velocity, is observer dependent. So, for example, if you fire a cannonball from a cannon it will have a massive amount of kinetic energy. But if you are flying next to the cannonball at the same speed, then you will say it has zero kinetic energy. Similarly for a photon, the energy you measure depends on your state of motion relative to the source. (This is a bit different from the Doppler effect with classical objects because the speed of the photons doesn't change, but its frequency, momentum and energy do.)

No. ! Moderator Note Try and ask questions that make sense.

I'm not going to go over all the ways you contradict the definition of dark matter, and how your theory cannot work. You ignored it all last time so it would be pointless.

You need to provide some evidence that (a) this is possible and (b) that it happened. What ancients? And how is this relevant?

How can a human spring from a chemical reaction? And why is there no evidence to support this?

It is, because you have invented properties for dark matter which contradict the existing definition. You need it to both interact and not interact.

Interesting point. (If true - I’m not sure how we can be sure - and it would depend on the definition of intelligence, I suppose.) I wonder if it says something about the water vs terrestrial environment. As a possible counter-example, octopuses are thought to be pretty intelligent.

I can’t see that there is any benefit to either crows or humans (as a couple of examples) becoming stronger. What predators do humans have to fight off? What other benefit would there be to being bigger or stronger? The main killers in most of the world are things that are microscopic (parasites, bacteria, viruses). Being stronger wouldn’t help with farming animals or crops. So where is the survival advantage?

But it also has a cost: increased size, need for more food, etc. And there are benefits to being small. Or fast. Not every animal can be the largest (or the strongest, or smallest, or fastest). Each species finds its own niche in the environment.

And no extra dimensions are required, either.

Perhaps because they can use their intelligence to survive, instead of relying on strength. Why should they be the strongest, if they don’t need to be?