Even if New Mexico completely echews fossil fuels in their state (which is expensive enough to be unlikely), that will not necessarily have any impact on the coal mining industry or on planetary pollution.
Since there is always a demand for coal *somewhere*, miners will likely find buyers in adjacent states and send their coal trains on slightly longer paths to their destination. The net amount of pollution remains relatively static in this case.
Ultimately, the only real solution IMHO is to develop alternative energy sources that are economically cheaper than coal, making mining unnecessary in any part of the world.
I'll bet if you applied lorentz and electrostatic forces to the equations, you'd find the rapidly-changing velocities of air particles do allow for particles to be moved in this manner.
The effect should increase severalfold when the entire apparatus is surrounded in a larger static magnetic field.
Like humans, self-driving cars will occasionally get into horrible accidents. The question is, when it happens, who is at fault? the driver, the auto manufacturer, the dealer, the programmer, etc?
The lawsuits that follow their first catastrophic crash will likely kill development in self-driving cars for the next decade or more.
It's interesting to see the creative ways mature industries will find to siphon enough money to keep their business model afloat.
The problem is that the information age has drastically improved ease-of-access which lowers the value of said information to near zero. Same as media organizations adding paywalls to their own online content.
How could a company like NYT possibly compete with random bloggers that do the same job for free? How could Blockbuster possibly compete with stores when people can stream the same movie on their TV with a single button?
All they can do is try to stem the bleeding with paywalls, fees, and other creative means. Eventually, the industries will have to scale back and compete with cheaper alternatives.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. How would you feel about having to email your paper to hundreds of special snowflakes who can't go through the normal channels?
For clarification, "Normal channels" usually means giving large sums of money to a profitable journal in order to read details on what was often a publicly-funded study.
I would love to see some good samaritans start publishing terabytes of peer-review journals on Torrent sites. It would be much more beneficial to society.
They should make a law to require all medical books be approved by one of Bayer, GSK or Pfizer. Then people will know they're getting the unbiased truth.
Science is no more immune from monetary corruption than any other industry. Asbestos, Cigarettes, and Glysophate are just a few modern examples of this.
Of course, pointing this out will often result in one being called an 'anti-vaxxer'. I am not. I just have a healthy skepticism for any scientific studies funded by industry insiders.
I have not found any peer-reviewed literature at a library that was not at least 30yrs old.
As relatively amateur scientist, I would love to be able to study the actual material without having to pay large sums of money to readeach paper.
It would be great if someone would start posting torrents of peer-review journals so everything is more accessible to the public.
It's an interesting idea, and certainly possible. I love exploring and testing possible alternative models.
I think my gripe is in the difference between a particle that was physically discovered, and a particle that was invented in order to balance an equation.
The math works out quite well, but the fundamental contradictions suggests that something is very likely wrong and/or missing.
Things like massless virtual particles that are used as mathematical bridges to balance equations, even though they cannot actually exist in reality (due to E=MC^2).
There have been many past examples where the mathematics and predictions were extremely accurate despite the fundamental assumptions being wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But no, you won't, because you can't do the math. It bothers you that others understand something that you can't, so you sneer at their conclusions as being obviously wrong.
I'd be glad to discuss the subject as deeply as you wish. Be careful not to fall into your own fallacy.
Yes I agree, a side-effect of the current model is that it does not really allow for energy synthesis (except maybe interdimensional or perhaps by exploiting relativity?) But other models may indeed allow for energy synthesis/destruction.
You may not be aware that the original Maxwell Quaternions possess a magnitude quantity that is actually lost when it is reduced to vector algebra.
This magnitude quantity (the "A field", as opposed to the "B magnetic field") can indeed lead to a non-zero energy balance when applied in certain electrical configurations.
You're right about that. I don't think most physicists even stop to understand the concepts behind the math and terms they are using. They indeed appear valid and accurate, but I think many may be relying on false assumptions about the nature of reality.
As a semi-recent example, the Ptolemaic model of astronomy was extremely accurate and made many valid predictions, despite it operating from a completely false set of assumptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Anyway, from my understanding, a virtual particle is one that possesses zero mass that is used as a bridge to convey energy (dielectric and magnetic) across space.
And since E=MC^2, a particle that contains energy without possessing mass should not be possible.
Now there are other eloquent models that eliminate the need for these contradictory particles while still being compatible with modern science, but they are generally less complete than the current system, so they are still shrugged away.
Since this is a Tesla thread, I thought he would be able to weigh in on this:
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."
I hope this not all come across as rude, I am thoroughly enjoying our chat. Very stimulating.:-)
Yes it is possible, but only through the original Steinmetz/Heaviside mathematics.
Quaternions posess a magnitude quantity that is not conveyed in the Lorentz vector simplifications.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Um, no. The various forces describes by virtual particles are not measurement errors; they are quite real.
I was talking about the existence of the particles themselves, not the forces incurred by them.
My point is that the particles only exist in the realm of mathematics, as a crutch to bridge two systems.
This implies that something is missing.
No. The big bang describes the beginning of our universe. Energy couldn't very well enter a universe which didn't exist.
N-dimensional multiverse models actually do allow for 'energy' (technically it would be called potential/polarization) to exist outside an encapsulation of 4D space. But alas this is well beyond the realm of testability/falsifyability.
Universal laws such as the laws of thermodynamics are properties of our universe. It's nonsensical to talk about something being consistent with laws which only formed after it occurred.
It's equally possible that the laws governing the universe existed well before the universe itself. Again, this is beyond the realm of testability.
"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
Slashdot Mirror
Since there is always a demand for coal *somewhere*, miners will likely find buyers in adjacent states and send their coal trains on slightly longer paths to their destination. The net amount of pollution remains relatively static in this case.
Ultimately, the only real solution IMHO is to develop alternative energy sources that are economically cheaper than coal, making mining unnecessary in any part of the world.
I'll bet if you applied lorentz and electrostatic forces to the equations, you'd find the rapidly-changing velocities of air particles do allow for particles to be moved in this manner. The effect should increase severalfold when the entire apparatus is surrounded in a larger static magnetic field.
The lawsuits that follow their first catastrophic crash will likely kill development in self-driving cars for the next decade or more.
These days, most national news outlets just copy-paste the same AP stories of the day amongst each-other. Very little novelty to them.
The problem is that the information age has drastically improved ease-of-access which lowers the value of said information to near zero. Same as media organizations adding paywalls to their own online content.
How could a company like NYT possibly compete with random bloggers that do the same job for free? How could Blockbuster possibly compete with stores when people can stream the same movie on their TV with a single button?
All they can do is try to stem the bleeding with paywalls, fees, and other creative means. Eventually, the industries will have to scale back and compete with cheaper alternatives.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. How would you feel about having to email your paper to hundreds of special snowflakes who can't go through the normal channels?
For clarification, "Normal channels" usually means giving large sums of money to a profitable journal in order to read details on what was often a publicly-funded study.
I would love to see some good samaritans start publishing terabytes of peer-review journals on Torrent sites. It would be much more beneficial to society.
They should make a law to require all medical books be approved by one of Bayer, GSK or Pfizer. Then people will know they're getting the unbiased truth.
Science is no more immune from monetary corruption than any other industry. Asbestos, Cigarettes, and Glysophate are just a few modern examples of this.
Of course, pointing this out will often result in one being called an 'anti-vaxxer'. I am not. I just have a healthy skepticism for any scientific studies funded by industry insiders.
https://www.foodnavigator.com/...
You just made my year. Thanks a thousand. :-)
I have not found any peer-reviewed literature at a library that was not at least 30yrs old. As relatively amateur scientist, I would love to be able to study the actual material without having to pay large sums of money to readeach paper. It would be great if someone would start posting torrents of peer-review journals so everything is more accessible to the public.
It's a shame that 99% of modern science is hidden behind peer-review paywalls.
And even if the system is well-characterized and repeatable, most researchers will still simply call it impossible and work on other things.
I'll buy the invisible bridge with some virtual particles and dark matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8
Wow, I'm surprised to see modern physicists incorporating aether-like properties to space. It's quite the 'Teslian' shift.
As with most religions, most followers of Tesla never actually read the books.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
It's an interesting idea, and certainly possible. I love exploring and testing possible alternative models.
I think my gripe is in the difference between a particle that was physically discovered, and a particle that was invented in order to balance an equation.
There is a similar problem with 'dark matter'.
Things like massless virtual particles that are used as mathematical bridges to balance equations, even though they cannot actually exist in reality (due to E=MC^2).
There have been many past examples where the mathematics and predictions were extremely accurate despite the fundamental assumptions being wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But no, you won't, because you can't do the math. It bothers you that others understand something that you can't, so you sneer at their conclusions as being obviously wrong.
I'd be glad to discuss the subject as deeply as you wish. Be careful not to fall into your own fallacy.
You may not be aware that the original Maxwell Quaternions possess a magnitude quantity that is actually lost when it is reduced to vector algebra.
This magnitude quantity (the "A field", as opposed to the "B magnetic field") can indeed lead to a non-zero energy balance when applied in certain electrical configurations.
You're right about that. I don't think most physicists even stop to understand the concepts behind the math and terms they are using. They indeed appear valid and accurate, but I think many may be relying on false assumptions about the nature of reality.
As a semi-recent example, the Ptolemaic model of astronomy was extremely accurate and made many valid predictions, despite it operating from a completely false set of assumptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Anyway, from my understanding, a virtual particle is one that possesses zero mass that is used as a bridge to convey energy (dielectric and magnetic) across space. And since E=MC^2, a particle that contains energy without possessing mass should not be possible.
Now there are other eloquent models that eliminate the need for these contradictory particles while still being compatible with modern science, but they are generally less complete than the current system, so they are still shrugged away.
Since this is a Tesla thread, I thought he would be able to weigh in on this: "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."
I hope this not all come across as rude, I am thoroughly enjoying our chat. Very stimulating. :-)
Yes it is possible, but only through the original Steinmetz/Heaviside mathematics. Quaternions posess a magnitude quantity that is not conveyed in the Lorentz vector simplifications. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Um, no. The various forces describes by virtual particles are not measurement errors; they are quite real.
I was talking about the existence of the particles themselves, not the forces incurred by them. My point is that the particles only exist in the realm of mathematics, as a crutch to bridge two systems. This implies that something is missing.
No. The big bang describes the beginning of our universe. Energy couldn't very well enter a universe which didn't exist.
N-dimensional multiverse models actually do allow for 'energy' (technically it would be called potential/polarization) to exist outside an encapsulation of 4D space. But alas this is well beyond the realm of testability/falsifyability.
Universal laws such as the laws of thermodynamics are properties of our universe. It's nonsensical to talk about something being consistent with laws which only formed after it occurred.
It's equally possible that the laws governing the universe existed well before the universe itself. Again, this is beyond the realm of testability.
"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."