Klaynos

When it's not in a superposition of states. Which is quite often. Swansont gave a good example. Well "Simultaneous observation of the quantization and the interference pattern of a plasmonic near-field." Nature Communications 02 March 2015 There is also no evidence of morphing which if nothing else would mean you could catch it in the "wrong" state.

Not always. And it's not so much particles acting as waves they are neither particle nor wave. They're something else.

There was once a field of "medicine" where the treatment was derived from a plant that looked like the ailment or the part of body effected. It wasn't very successful.

Is it possible? Yes. Is there any evidence that it's the case? No. And that's the nub of the discussion. If there's no actual evidence then the discussion will not be very fruitful just lots of unsupported speculations. There are millions upon millions of shapes made by plants and millions upon millions of shapes of other stuff, humans are good pattern recognition machines we shouldn't be surprised that there is some overlap. I'd suggest moving onto something with evidence.

The problem with exoplanet lists is there is a strong bias for what we can easily detect. Your question doesn't have a simple answer. What is your idea? If is probably easier to know if it's not possible. E.g. lots of odd intercepting orbits wouldn't be stable, both counter and clockwise orbits around the same object would be difficult to explain the cause of etc...

! Moderator Note Currently this thread isn't meeting our minimum requirements for speculations. Please review our speculations guidelines which can be found here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

So no maths or evidence then. Just a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions. I'd suggest trying to learn some physics before criticising it. We do, that's why you can see stars, the sun, your bedroom light, the computer screen etc... But no source other than the CMB was/is everywhere in the universe at once. Learn the maths, understand the physics then you might understand just how wrong you're being.

Yes.

I work with lots of people with a range of science backgrounds. From bsc biologists to PhD physicists and the whole spectrum. You can tell, even after they've been in the work place for 10 years those who have done PhDs. The problem solving skill set and communication skills tend to be significantly better. Very few use the specific knowledge from their PhDs.

I'd encourage you to show the maths that leads you to this conclusion. Important isn't the word of use. The lambda cdm model is our best mathematical model of the development of the universe when compared to the quantitative measurements. I almost never talk about it at work. Insect I think I've talked about it once in the last 2 or so years at work. Because they fail to follow the rules. Give them a quick read through. No but you will be asked to present your evidence in a scientific way and not make WAGs.

Something like the ones on the right of the picture in this page http://www.barodascientificglassworks.com/glass-pipettes.htm I just googled for pipette in images.

! Moderator Note Zxen, this is a very old thread. We also ask that you don't answer mainstream threads with your own nonmainstream ideas. If you want to discuss your idea open a new thread in speculations. There are special rules for the speculations forum that you should read.

I think most people have similar panderings. It's good to think about things and ask questions.

You're making a common mistake. I'm going to talk about electrons but this can be applied more broadly. An electron isn't a particle with some wave behaviours. An electron isn't a wave with some particle behaviours. An electron is something else, an object that we don't have a good analogy for as things like that don't exist in our everyday lives. You could use the term wavicle, an object that is both wave like and particle like, but something different.

"Standards are like toothbrushes, everyone agrees you should have one but no one wants to use anyone elses."

To keep it going you need to add weight at the same rate it's reaching the bottom. Therefore your conveyer would need to lift the same amount of weight it's lowering once running. In other words it would stop as the weight of the two sides becomes equal, in reality it'd be a bit before this due to losses.

Read his papers, you're just wrong. ! Moderator Note Thread closed. Didn't meet our minimum requirements. You may not reintroduce this topic. If you have the maths you may report this post petitioning for the thread to be reopened.

As a staff we've talked about it. We may have even tried it once. The posts would just end up in the lounge which would make it messy and harder to control. We're all people why not have a politics discussion area. I rarely take part in them. Cap'n had generated similar things in the past. Looking at posts over time in the given areas... Done interesting things.

! Moderator Note Thread moved to speculations. Some evidence and maths else this is about to be closed.

Except mine isn't an opinion it's based on a quick back of the envelop guesstimate from the temp change with age of universe and the current error bars on the age of the universe from the CMB (both results were consistent at a few tens of millions of years for 2 reliable data points(. Science, not opinion. Your opinion is not as valid as the evidence. The science is supported by the evidence. Your opinion isn't as worthwhile the science.

You need to get above the noise floor which is around 20 million years.

Given current instruments you'd need to measure the CMB for a few tens of millions of years to measure the cooling assuming current physics.

Or even 12 and a half years...

This is outside the domain over which QM is a good model so it says nothing about this. The lambda CDN model. Which is a parameterisation of the big bang model. They don't at the moment. Dark matter will probably turn out to be some kind of wimp in the standard model. Which will be consistent with QM. Who knows about dark energy. Who knows. The term dark matter and dark energy were first coined because we know little about them, like the dark ages. With dark matter it also doesn't interact strongly with em radiation so will quite probably always be known as dark. On the edges of what we already know and have measured.

Situational awareness is always good as long as you know how to handle the situation which is checking. My use case us a shared path with occasional bikes going in both directions with some pedestrians. I really don't know whether it'd any use.