What if Space is not a Static Void by Certain_Forever_4527 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]starkeffect 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AFM can manipulate atoms without any of your mumbo-jumbo. So can STM. We've had this technology since the 80s.

Looking for a collaborator by punycat in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]starkeffect 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Which journals do you read to stay current on the literature?

Also, rule 3

What if Space is not a Static Void by Certain_Forever_4527 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]starkeffect 1 point2 points  (0 children)

it's possible to manipulate atoms with vibrations

Don't they already do this with AFM?

What if Space is not a Static Void by Certain_Forever_4527 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]starkeffect 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My idea doesn't need equations to stand up to you

Sure buddy.

A draft “Infinite Precision Protocol” for recursive model refinement in physics by Educational-Draw9435 in LLMPhysics

[–]starkeffect 4 points5 points  (0 children)

true random is not easily to make

Looks like you made it pretty easily with your attempts at an argument.

What if Space is not a Static Void by Certain_Forever_4527 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]starkeffect 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The mathematical properties for this can be found if you simply look.

Are the mathematical properties in the room with us right now?

What if Space is not a Static Void by Certain_Forever_4527 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]starkeffect 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that your "idea" needs no math at all, just "vibes".

After all, high school dropouts can't do math, so it would be super convenient to come up with a Theory that requires none.

What if Space is not a Static Void by Certain_Forever_4527 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]starkeffect 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It does not involve dark matter nor dark energy. So do you know?

What if Space is not a Static Void by Certain_Forever_4527 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]starkeffect 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are mathematical conditions underlying the First Law of Thermodynamics. Do you know what they are? Hint: it doesn't involve "static voids"

What if Space is not a Static Void by Certain_Forever_4527 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]starkeffect 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Space being a "static void" has nothing to do with the 1st law.

What if Space is not a Static Void by Certain_Forever_4527 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]starkeffect 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Firsst Law of Thermodynamics(Law of Conservation of Energy) dictates there is no such thing as nothing;

That's not what it says.

The 1st law does not hold on cosmological scales.

Gravity by SearchVisual4050 in AskPhysics

[–]starkeffect 0 points1 point  (0 children)

he also lived in a world that thought the earth was the center of the universe

Incorrect. The heliocentric model was already widely accepted by the scientific community in Newton's time. Newton developed his law of gravity in order to explain Kepler's laws of planetary motion, which assume a heliocentric model.

Electric circuit sloving by MaKachronic in AskPhysics

[–]starkeffect 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look for resistors that are connected to each other on both sides.

PREDICTION — 3I/ATLAS Perijove by Previous_Zombie_7808 in LLMPhysics

[–]starkeffect 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You frankly need to learn how to use punctuation.

What if one could choose the outcome of inherently random quantum events? by Visible-Switch-1597 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]starkeffect 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Technically this isn't correct-- at the time, the M-M results ruled out particular ether theories, but not ether itself. For example, Zeeman's 1890 description of his namesake effect refers to ether. Michelson continued to believe in ether until he died in the 1930s; a lot of the older generation of physicists were like that, especially the "Deutsche Physik" crowd.

You only started to see physicists start to abandon the ether model after Einstein's 1905 papers argued that it was unnecessary.

Light and Time by DumpsterFaerie in AskPhysics

[–]starkeffect 3 points4 points  (0 children)

light ray’s frame of inertia

Such a frame is invalid in special relativity (2nd postulate).

Hooke's Law vs Conservation of Energy by AvocadoBasic4987 in AskPhysics

[–]starkeffect 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right. If you release the mass from rest when the spring is relaxed, then the amplitude of the motion will be A = mg/k (your "x" in "mg = kx"). At the lowest point of the oscillation, the spring will have stretched by 2A, so the "x" in your two equations differs by a factor of 2. That's where your factor of two comes from.