Strange

Now merged with Sky-Trax: http://www.rfidjournal.com/articles/view?9083 And have now become TotalTrax: http://www.totaltraxinc.com (who don't seem to produce golf balls)

Except, of course, it couldn't. Science works (consider the fact you are using a computer/phone and Internet to converse with people thousands of miles apart) while making stuff up, doesn't. Are we? Citation needed. And what if there isn't?

If you are concerned about the patent, then you need to read what it says very carefully. For example, they might use RF chips but the patent probably should only list that as one example method and will says that other suitable techniques could be used. So it may be (should be, if it is well written) hard to get round the patent.

Well that opens a can of worms and pours it down the rabbit hole. Why do people fall in love with the people they do? Why do some people collect cuckoo clocks and others matchbox labels? Why do some people like heavy metal and some like opera? (No doubt some like both; there is probably a heavy metal opera out there.) Reminds me of an interview I heard with a young boy with autism who had memorised every house in his town with a blue front door. "Not green doors though?" asked the interviewer. The boy sounded pained as if explaining to someone who wasn't very bright, "Of course not. That would just be silly."

Rather than talk about completely different systems wouldn't it be better to explain in more detail why the proposed system is not practical?

By taking it off topic?

As far as I can tell, the idea that matter can be created is a figment of Itoero's imagination. This is a complicated question. At one level, there doesn't seem to be a violation just because the universe is expanding and cooling. On the other hand, the concept of energy and conservation are not clearly defined in GR so there is some debate about whether the conservation of energy makes any sense on cosmological scales. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

This is vague beyond belief (and off topic). "Maybe this thing I don't understand could be the mechanism". Well no. If so, the people who do understand quantum field theory would have noticed. You are suggesting a violation of energy conservation, something which has never been observed.

That's the word I was struggling for! Thank you. Is that the same thing? I thought that worked the same way as any other aerofoil/wing? But I suppose it does generate linear momentum, just not tangentially. So it seems tangential to the topic.

There is no known mechanism for this. There is no evidence for this. And no known mechanism for a black hole to explode. (As your reference appears to be a video, I have no idea what it is about.) And a black hole exploding, even if possible, has nothing in common with the Big Bang model.

This is a spinning wheel with loads attached.When you release the load at the right time it carries on in a straight line. If you get the timing right, it will go straight up. It is possible but I don't know if it is practical. I can see all sorts of mechanical problems. When you release one of the loads you will get a reaction in the wheel. Also, after that the wheel will be unbalanced until you release the load on the opposite side. I can't see any obvious advantage of this approach. Or are you thinking of this as a way of getting the wheel off the ground? In which case the problems seem even greater and the advantages less.

They are not different dialects, they are totally different languages. For example British Sign Language and American Sig Language are completely different and not mutually comprehensible. (And note that there is no connection between the spoken languages in a country and the sign languages.) There is an International Sign Language but it is a "pidgin" with limited vocabulary and grammar. It is used when people who do not share a common (sign) language meet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Sign An true international sign language is probably not practical as it would require everyone to learn a second language. Look at how successful things like Esperanto or Volapuk have been.

Yep. I can't see why anyone would find this a puzzling aspect of human nature.

Maybe (although that may be impractical). But that (again) seems to be orthogonal to the issue of religion. Not all religious people are irrational and not all non-religious people are rational. Attacking or banning religion won't help increase rationality. For example, I am totally in favour of teaching young children the basics of philosophy and critical thinking. That might help avoid the problems of anti-vaxers, conspiracy theorists, homeopathy, reading the Daily Mail, and all sorts of other irrational behaviours. p.s.I think it is odd that you want to tackle irrationality when you are irrationally obsessing over something that is only incidental to the problems you see. It is like trying to improve road safety by banning left-handed people (because they are responsible for some accidents).

So you are attacking religion because there are people with irrational (and sometimes dangerous) beliefs. Would it be better to tackle antivaxers as a whole, rather than just the religious ones? You are attacking something completely irrelevant to the problem.

That is not "American" grammar, though. It is just applying stupid "zombie" rules. (Rules that won't die even after you prove them bogus.) Yes, as far as I know American English does not distinguish the two senses in British English.

Except when you are extrapolating wildly and adding all sorts of details that weren't present in the original. For the interested reader, here is a bit of background for this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tangled-up-in-spacetime/ (That is the sort of thing I was asking for, Itoero.)

Sorry. I wasn't taking it that literally. I just meant the whole thing of entanglement creating mass. Not particles, specifically. From that transcript, it sounds like you are extrapolating well beyond what was said. As you did with the black hole article too linked to.

The W & Z are bosons and the "force carriers" for the weak interaction.The way they take part in the interactions is describer on the page I linked to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction#Interaction_types

It seems to be true. I just mean that something as vague as "an encyclopaedia" is not a useful reference; i.e.it doesn't;t really help anyone find the information. A link to (or even just the name of) the specific article would be better. I don't know what that means. What is the basis for your hypothesis?

It simply says that decay can only happen when it results in a lower energy configuration. This is true of all types of decay, as far as I know. This is why free neutrons decay into protons (which have lower mass) and why they generally don't decay in atoms. Well, neither are responsible for forces, so it isn't clear what this means. But do you have any evidence for this hypothesis? p.s. "Wikipedia" is not a useful reference. You might as well say "a book" or "someone said". p.p.s The particles "responsible" for the weak interaction are the W and Z bosons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction

Space doesn't "suck light". The reason empty space cannot be seen is because there is nothing (or not enough) to reflect light. There are plenty of things that are "invisible" (as transparent) as air. Space is not an object, it is just the measure of distance between things. We now very well from theory and observation that the commonest element in the universe is hydrogen. It make up about 95% of the universe. You can say that again.

0.1 parts per million (the 65th most common element). A bigger problem is that it is extremely toxic. It has been replaced in nearly all of the industrial uses it had in the past.

Where in that post does it say anything about "the breaking of entanglement creates stable particles" ? It is purely about black holes. I'll have to take your word for it then. (I will have to assume you are better at understanding the spoken word than written.) Ah, here is a website with a transcript of the video. http://www.cornell.edu/video/leonard-susskind-3-entanglement I haven't read it all yet. It is not very clear (because it is an informal talk) but I get the impression that energy is not created, just moved from one place to another.

Did anyone say that you did?