Strange

Related to what Ghideon said above: if you are saying that our current laws of physics are wrong, then you can't trust a physics engine (based on those laws) to give you the right answer!! Or, to put it another way: you can't use the laws of physics to prove that those same laws of physics are wrong.

No it isn't. It can only model what you tell it. For example you can, I assume create a single object (a sphere for simplicity) and apply a force to it. It will move (accelerate) appearing to defy physics. But all that is happening is that you haven't told the system what the source of the force is and so it is not able to model the reaction. There is an error, or more likely just something missing, from your model. That is the explanation. So build one and show it works.

If you are applying a force in the +Y axis then there will be an equal force in the -Y direction. What does this latter force act on? The physics engine only knows about the forces you tell it about. If you leave something out (such as a reaction) then you may not get realistic results. (I am not interested in your model. Just physics. Physics tells us there is something wrong in your model. It is up to you to debug it. I am not doing it for you.)

I don't know. (And, to be honest, don't really care.) You could build an actual physical model and compare it with the computer mode. That might give you a clue. My guess is that you are not taking into account some source of (or dissipation of) energy. For example, you have components of the model moving. What is the source of energy for that movement? Have you taken into account the equal and opposite reaction to that movement? Or, to put it more simply, what do those parts "push against" when they move?

Therefore there is an error in either your script or the modelling software.

Bye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Both threads are about "the recent experiments that confirmed Wigner's Friend" (as you say in the second sentence of both threads). That is the only scientific content in the threads. Your odd beliefs about the Mandela effect have nothing to do with those experiments.

It is trivially easy to get people to remember when the met Bugs Bunny(*) at Disney land, for example. And they are absolutely convinced that their false memory is genuine, because ... well, because they remember it happening. (*) For those as out of touch as me: not a Disney character This for measurements of quantum state. Not whether someone is alive or not. Why are you calling people "idiots"? What makes you say things like that?

How about actually explaining, rather than making incomprehensibly cryptic responses.

! Moderator Note Please do not post copyrighted articles. It is unnecessary when you have provided links to the sources. Also, please make it clearer what you are quoting from elsewhere and what parts are your contribution. It is impossible to have a discussion, otherwise.

You don't need anything other than the well-known plasticity of memory to explain the Mandela effect. And "strange coincidences" are not that strange, or coincidental, when you actually analyse them. Making the leap from "coincidences are weird and quantum theory is weird" to "therefore they must be connected" is just intellectually lazy and has no substance to it.

! Moderator Note 1. This is a science forum, so that is never a valid argument. 2. Turn down the attitude or you will be taking another break.

What benefit would magnetic induction provide? What benefit does using water as the heating element provide? Small? You can buy immersion heaters that fit in a mug (for making hot drinks). So thee don’t seem to be any size constraints.

Patient: Doctor, what is it? Doctor: Well, it's a very serious disease. Patient: Can it be treated? Doctor. Yes. But I'm afraid I couldn't be bothered to learn the name (too much cheap cider!) so I can't look it up and find the treatment. Patient: ... ? Doctor: Uhm, ... have you made a will?

You'll be saying "it's only semantics" next. Of course the meanings of words matter. If you don't care, then maybe just shrug and walk away and remain ignorant of the definitions of those terms. Why attack people for wanting to know what words mean? What next? Burning books? Sheesh.

I know I am not supposed to get involved as I have already acted as a moderator (but hopefully in a fairly non-contentious way), but I can't resist the need to point out that there are two ways of defining something: 1. In terms of something else (which is, hopefully, simpler) 2. As an axiom (or postulate or "self evident truth" or whatever) in which case the thing is defined as simply being itself. (I believe this is what "Lawbringer" is referring to as a "circular definition".) All definitions must eventually bottom out to (2). I would not call that a circular definition as I think it is useful to distinguish fundamental concepts that cannot be defined in terms of anything else, from the circular definitions which are often the basis of a fallacy (similar to begging the question).

! Moderator Note Closed at OP's request.

If you are isolating the water that is used to generate the heat from the water that is being heated, then I can't see any point in retaining the water used to generate the heat. Just use resistive wire (as used in old-fashioned electric heaters). Any advantage that comes from using the water as a heating element (whatever that might be - I struggle to imagine) is gone once you are no longer directly heating the water with the electric current. It sounds like you are trying to solve a non-existent problem. Encase the electric heating elements in a metal surround and ensure that the element cannot come into contact with it. (And ground it for safety, obviously.) It is called an "immersion heater".

! Moderator Note You had your chance to bring some rigour and science to this discussion. Instead all you have is baseless assertions. Clearly this "theory" is not ready for serious discussion. The thread is closed. Do not bring this subject up again.

! Moderator Note I am happy with it so far. It introduces, reasonably clearly, an important fact about definitions which could lead to an interesting discussion. I will move it to Philosophy though, as the issue is wider than mathematics. (I will also be keeping a close eye on it.)

I think it is more a case of being impervious to being shown to be wrong.

You call it a "wobbler" in that other thread. Does that imply it moves backwards and forwards? Or can it make continuous linear movement?

! Moderator Note Moved

! Moderator Note Last chance. Show, in mathematical detail, what "have numbers associated with them" means. This sort of vague waffle is not good enough. ! Moderator Note Show in mathematical detail how this is derived.

! Moderator Note You can attach the document for reference. You cannot just post a document with no explanation. I see no mathematics in your answers. Just assertions. You need to do better.