Klaynos

A model in modern physics means a mathematical model of part of the universe. This isn't a model it's a story. Without maths there is no way to accurately composers against the universe. So other than broad statements like Mordred had made it's impossible to critique further other than to say this.

A theory in physics is a mathematical body of work that makes accurate, specific, numerical predictions. Where are your specific, numeric predictions?

! Moderator Note Do not reintroduce this topic.

*sigh*

You're doing the equivalent of standing by a closed door. Claiming you can walk through the door without opening it. Opening the die walking through and telling everyone you didn't open the door. If you assume photons you are introducing qm into your classical derivation.

If suggest you reread the contents here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/90596-classical-mathematical-derivation-of-photon-momentum/page-2 You're right though you were not told to not reintroduce the same topic. You appear to have learnt nothing from that thread closure. Again the qm assumption is in "scale to one photon..." Ignore this if you like you still will be wrong.

As shown in the closed thread this isn't true. I'm pretty sure you were told not to reintroduce that topic.

ajb, you must remember that he thinks it's completely classical if you assume photons... It's just wrong.

Which required a fudge (assume photons I think you said). Don't state things as if they were unchallenged it doesn't give a good impression.

First test with any new equation is dimensional analysis. If it fails that (which people have shown it does hence unit problems) the equation is wrong and can be happily dismissed.

There have been studies. Decays are random there is no beat.

Or use argo data? Or model data? I don't know how depth dependent currents are nor how good models are after the fact?

Sorry, your view that qm doesn't help people is jest false. Walk into a hospital and turn off every device with a micro controller or CPU and head watch as not only do patients suffer immediately but no one can be easily summoned to help them. This is one of the worst arguments against qm research I've ever seen, and frankly that's saying something.

! Moderator Note You don't get to choose what replies to listen to in your threads. Ignoring evidence against your ideas is not allowed in our speculation forum, if you want to continue posting here pleass review our rules, speculation guidelines and follow them. Do not reply to this modnote, report it if you dissagree.

Did you consider search who has cited the paper of you fear it's too old (which it probably isn't)?

To take this idea seriously I'd need to see numerical (and the calculations used) answers to at least these questions: 1. What is the efficiency of this storage medium compared to others? 2. What volume of storage is required for say 20% of a wind turbines daily output compared to other methods? 3. What is the rough cost of development and certification? 4. What are the maintenance costs compared to other methods? (I'd suggest comparing other similar technologies for this one) 5. What's the wrist case scenario when things go wrong? 6. How easily can the storage capacity be changed? I don't want now assertions and handwaving. It's just wrong. Waves are wind driven. Any surfer will tell you waves are anything but consistent.

Some are free to the author. Some cost a few thousand dollars depending on length, figures etc. It varies greatly.

So no numbers to back up your claims. Why should we bother pursuing this without even a cursory feasibility analysis of efficiency compared to other methods?

Do you have any numbers to back up your assertions?

If you're using lithium batteries you need to build (or I'd suggest to buy) a proper charge controller else you will very likely end up with a fire. Most of what I've done in the last 5 years has been 5v stuff but I know you can get 5v/3.7v controllers (both input and output) from China for a few dollars. It's not worth the risk of not doing it.

Easily, no causation has been proposed. No conclusion can be drawn so we defer to the other evidence. The earth is not special.

I disagree. If you measure enough things some of them will correlate or align, just by the law of large numbers. Correlation does not mean causation.

The point is the centre of mass doesn't have to be on the surface. It memory serves, for a 3d curved "surface" which space might be the centre of mass might be uniform so everywhere. Again no special point.

Something can easily be finite and bit have a centre. Consider a sphere, a soccer back say, please tell me where the centre of the surface of the ball is?

But relativity shows us that every frame is just as valid. That's kinda the point. Earth is not special in general relativity. And I imagine it does hurt your feelings but you're ignoring the known science and providing no evidence in exactly the Dane way.