Klaynos

One of the things with new tech is it's very difficult to predict. So I don't think anyone could reliably answer this.

You're wrong I'm afraid. http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/october-2013/why-particle-physics-matters

I think all of them employ engineers and experimental physicist, and they have all resulted in commercial products with ongoing research. I therefore think the answer to your question is either all or none.

Are you in a residential area? 10 pm peak, 12 noon minimum is similar to domestic power usage in since areas. Details on diernal variation of the earth's electric field are easily found in the literature. Do you see any affect in convective weather?

No, the data that swansont provided shows you're wrong. You cannot just wave away the measurements the way you have. The universe does not agree with your intuition.

Those distances are well understood and measured. As is the earth's rotation time. How about rather than just spouting unsupported assertions you plot the data looking for correlations?

Yes, cloud chamber is a great idea.

You seem to miss understand momentum. It is not a fundamental property, but a property of the system that depends on the frame in which it's measured. In any situation you can sum the vectors of the linear momentum of the particles in an ensemble to give a total momentum. Your zero momentum frame would be the frame in which there is zero. This frame comoving with the ensemble in the lab frame. I'm frankly agast you can state something is wrong without any basic understanding of what you're talking about. The lack of integrity is astounding, but not uncommon.

A very accessible way into doing some intro astrophysics is to buy a telescope. If you get the right one you can do a basic star survey looking at their intensity and colour. Others here will know more about this than me. Astro was never really my thing.

Can you please provide an example when there is not a frame in which the total momentum of an ensemble of massive particles is zero? Your example of two particles both with orthogonal momentum, the zero total frame is moving at 45 degrees to them both relative to the original rest frame. Also, when giving speeds you need to state what they're relative to.

There are lots of good distance learning courses these days. Even some acceptable online courses as an introduction (at least to get some evidence for what you know). Getting a job is all about evidence. It's trying to find the most efficient way of getting that. Also remember you're unlikely to start at anything other than entry level.

I would probably describe this as a units and error problem, 2bags + 2bags = 5 +/- 1 peanuts Where bags = 2.5 +/- 5 peanuts As discussed above is really down to poor phrasing, not maths not philosophy.

! Moderator Note The Bible is not a scientific source or evidence for anything other than that people wrote some stories down. Unless the tone of the op changes and some evidence is presented this thread will close. I'd suggest Strange's suggestion above as a starting point. Do not reply to this Modnote.

You know that most of those images are false colour?

! Moderator Note Thread closed, op hadn't done the maths. Do not reintroduce this topic. Also, advertising link removed. You may appeal this modnote by reporting this post.

After 2 years have you done this yet?

! Moderator Note That's not doing any maths that's just writing out seemingly random things. If you've done the maths you shouldn't need mathematica, it's just a tool to make some things easier not to replace a piece paper or LaTeX to explain what you've done to others. Last chance or the thread is closed for not meeting our minimum requirements in speculations.

! Moderator Note You've "done the math", so can you run us through a worked example in thread, preferably using LaTeX? If this didn't happen I'm closing the thread. Also moved to speculations, check out the discussion rules for this section.

! Moderator Note Do your own work.

A high altitude balloon?

Ok, much closer to the earth than I thought you were talking about. That would take a lot of fuel and control to keep it there, probably too much to be feasible, have you done the maths? It'd also get in the way of other orbitors.

No. They have vey specific refractive indices and are designed to be easily cleaned off of the lens.

An orbit around the sun you could say... an unstable one. You could possibly maintain it by active control, don't think it'd be easy though.

I'm pretty sure any such orbit would be unstable.

Have a look at geostationary satellites. The moon's orbit dues change with time, it's just very stable. And I imagine people would complain with very high resolution imagery from space.