Strange

No one who knows anything about physics believes that. You seem to be basing you argument on a popular science concept that is simplified to the point of being wrong. Er, what? The Copenhagen interpretation IS a conceptual interpretation. If you don't like that one choose another. If you don't like any of them then ignore them all. If that was true, you would fall through your chair. "Solidity" is a result of the repulsive forces between electrons. Therefore atoms are almost entirely "solid" (in as much as this term means anything at this scale). As you provide no evidence for this I think we can ignore it.

Then there is no reason for anyone to take your guesswork seriously. Come back when you have model that works.

No, because the black hole loses mass. Er, yes it is (for suitable definition of “lab” of course). Why do you think there is so much evidence for it? Because we are talking about science. If we were talking about art or history it might be different. We don’t know. As far as we know it has always been there.

Nope. For reasons explained repeatedly. (I almost admire your dogged refusal to acknowledge this.) Firstly, you have done no reasoning. Saying that you believe a god(*) exists because you believe in it/him/her, is NOT reasoning. It is circular logic and therefore simply a statement of what you believe. Secondly, you haven't provided a definition of synchronicity or any evidence that it exists. The only use of the term that I am aware of is as a synonym for coincidence. So no "higher power" required there. (*) Or whatever you want to call the thing you believe in: Higher Power, Superman, Hyper-Intelligent White Mice, Santa Claus, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. It's all the same to me. How do you know it has a very small probability of occurring without any interference of a higher power? You don't, do you. It is just something else you believe. Do you begin to see the circular nature of your arguments? Everything you claim as "evidence" is just something else you believe, not something that exists objectively. They are both the epitome of woo. Baseless beliefs presented as if they were facts. But given the fact you are only here to preach your beliefs and not listen to anyone else (and the fact that your "higher power" appears to be a pretty vile white supremacist) I think I will just put you on ignore.

I'm sorry but your ignorance is not a problem with the science. It is a problem that only you can solve by learning. Your question is so jumbled, ill-informed and full of misunderstandings, that to answer it would require gving you a fairly long introduction to basic physics. Perhaps, if you want to learn, you could start a thread where you extract a single idea that you don't understand and ask a straightforward question about it. Photons only travel at c, as do all massless particles. They never have any charge to lose. And they don't stop.

You don't seem to understand what the word "trust" means. If you are just "trusting" in your own personal belief, then it is faith, not trust. You may believe you have a personal relationship or connection with this "higher power", but that is all it is: a belief. There is no independent evidence that this "higher power" exists; therefore there is nothing to trust(*).The only reason to believe it is purely on the basis of faith. (*) We know, from scientific studies, that personal beliefs and experience are not to be trusted as a source of information.

Don't know. Not my field. Do you have some data to support that?

You may "trust" a higher power, but the existence of that higher power is a matter of pure faith (not trust).

It might be this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.02675

Then why did you say: "That would mean that, at some point in history, life all of a sudden manifested itself in matter. I don’t support that notion." If life is "just atoms", why don't you think it could just arise as those atoms rearrange themselves into more complex forms? Energy doesn't cause attraction. The significant forces when it comes to atoms (and therefore human thought) are the strong and weak nuclear forces, and the electromagnetic force. Obviously gravity plays a role as without it we wouldn't have a planet for life to evolve on.

Why are you so totally obnoxious to someone giving you good advice? When I was simply trying to understand your method you refused to explain and just made insulting comments instead. Luckily for me, someone else was able (and willing) to explain what you were doing. You need to change your attitude. You can start by not using “dear” (a term of affection) when you are insulting people. So, my advice is: (a) grow up and (b) learn algebra.

Also, “a gravity well in the fermion field” seems to be meaningless. Gravity wells exist in the “gravitational field” (ie space-time).

As always. Story of my life...

Excellent explanation. But doesn’t v also depend on the length contraction (in one dimension)?

As seen from Earth. Meanwhile, the spaceship will see clocks on Earth run 2 (or 4) times slower than the clock on the spaceship. It's all relative. The people on the spaceship will always see their lengths and times unchanged; as we do on Earth even though we are moving at 50% or 90% or 99% of the speed of light relative to something. I think, the observer on Earth will see the tank being half as long and taking twice as long to empty. It looks like this means they will consider the pressure to be double. Which is an interesting result, if true.

None. The clue is in the name. They aren't. Because they have no charge. Yes. A small net positive charge. (Matched by a negative charge in the (upper) atmosphere.) Because, by definition, an atom has the same number of protons and electrons. Position and momentum are not related to charge. Yes. Because, by definition, an atom has the same number of protons and electrons. So what. That can't create charge. You can, of course, remove one or more electrons from an atom. But then it is no longer an atom; it is a positively charged ion (and there are an equivalent number of negative charges somewhere else to balance them). You can't obviously. You also can't exclude the possibility that nothing is real and we are just characters in a unicorn's dream. So lets stick to science, and not wacky untestable delusions. But ... Matter is electrically neutral. (You raise the interesting example of the Earth and the atmosphere having small opposite charges. How does this fit with your "repulsion" idea?) Where is this electrostatic repulsion coming from? Why does the force increase as objects get closer together (and therefore further form the source of repulsion) when it should obviously get weaker)? We can block electromagnetic fields, so why can't we block gravity? This doesn't make much sense to me. But perhaps you can show the mathematics where this effect will reproduce Newtonian gravity? Conservation of momentum (I know you don't understand/believe in that, but tough). And because there is no friction to slow it down. (Actually it is being slowed very slightly by tidal forces. The same forces that have resulted in the moon always keeping the same face to the Earth. But this will never be enough to stop the Earth.) You are getting more and more off topic. But, if you insist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory Got any evidence for that? It is up to you to show (in mathematical detail) that a push force can reproduce the effects of Newtonian gravity (others have tried and failed, so good luck) and then to extend that to reproduce the effects described by General Relativity. For example, demonstrate in mathematical detail, that a push force can produce the predicted orbits of planets.

It is something about American-Vietnamese relations - Schultz (US Secretary of State) meeting ASEAN members - my Japanese is too rusty (and always found newspapers hard to read) to get much more out if it.

Is this understood? Is there some parameter of the particle that quantifies this? (I’m guessing it is ... mass ) Thinking about it, it is probably both. There is energy required to change the speed of something. But there may also be energy needed to change its position (for example, more energy is needed to move something up than down, because there is gravitational potential energy).

You don't need to give an object mass to make it move; you need to give it energy. The energy is to accelerate it. Massless particles never accelerate so they don't nee (extra) energy to make them move. Massless particles already have energy. That is probably true.

You are correct. They have spelt it out phonetically (Nippon人). I'm not sure why.

It is Japanese. The first headline is "Do the Japanese like life insurance?"

Or because we use mathematics to describe nature? (It depends whether you are a mathematics is invented or discovered kind of person!)

Could you explain: 1. Where these equations came from (or show how you derived them): RK = μ0 * c / (2 * α) RK = Z0 / 2 * α RK = (M * R * c * 2 *pi * / α ) / e^2 RK = ( U1 * R1 ) / Rc / ( e * c / (2 * pi R1 / α ) * Rc 2. Can you define what the following symbols mean: M, R, U1, R1, Rc Thanks

This. And I gather some Trump supporters used the C-word with reference to Clinton in the campaign without too much fuss being made. So there is a precedent.

Very good. The two things that do make me wonder are... The existence of Romanesco: And the fact that the following joke works: "Why do hackers confuse Halloween and Christmas? Because OCT 31 = DEC 25"