386 reputation
39
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 10 months
seen Sep 5 at 5:26

Sep
5
comment Can a super conducting magnet & gravity create a cheap source of energy?
Thank you Floris!
Sep
5
accepted Can a super conducting magnet & gravity create a cheap source of energy?
Sep
4
comment Can a super conducting magnet & gravity create a cheap source of energy?
Tell me why this would not work then? I would also like to think nope, but my head says once this was setup it would run...
Sep
4
comment Can a super conducting magnet & gravity create a cheap source of energy?
These would be magnets in a persistent mode - no further power required. Could they not then use effects such as Meissner effect to produce the levitation and then generate the power?
Sep
4
comment Can a super conducting magnet & gravity create a cheap source of energy?
-233 Celsius at night on the moon...
Sep
4
comment Can a super conducting magnet & gravity create a cheap source of energy?
Don't think about the set-up costs, can it be setup so when it runs the energy would be cheap and virtually free? I say it can!
Sep
4
comment Can a super conducting magnet & gravity create a cheap source of energy?
Let's say we build this in on the moon where it is already very cold. I appreciate we would need to get the kit there, but if it were set up in a very cold environment would it not work?
Sep
4
accepted Could we prove that neutrinos have mass by measuring their gravitational signature?
Sep
4
asked Can a super conducting magnet & gravity create a cheap source of energy?
Jul
17
awarded  Good Question
May
13
awarded  Popular Question
Jan
9
awarded  Notable Question
Nov
29
awarded  Critic
Nov
29
comment Is the standard model so full of holes it is time to start again?
@kleingordon and Danu - you may be right, maybe the theory is just incomplete. But when should we stop trying to make something fit? I would agree it is still early days and the standard model has been very resilient. However, as we make more and more observations that do not fit is there a point when we have to think again? If we went back 150 years I am sure that no one would have thought Newtonian gravitational theory could possibly be challenged, but it was. Human history is littered with examples of theories that made sense, but eventually failed due to improved observation.
Nov
29
comment Is the standard model so full of holes it is time to start again?
@kleingordon - what evidence for dark matter and dark energy exist that is not based on a contradiction of the standard model?
Nov
29
comment Is the standard model so full of holes it is time to start again?
@Danu - I do not see the distinction between something 'not built for' and observations that contradict a theory. They are two sides of the same coin. I understand that the question is controversial.
Nov
29
comment Is the standard model so full of holes it is time to start again?
They are not unanswered questions. They are clear observations that completely counter the theory! I thought that was how science worked? You theorise something, you then observe and see if your theory stacks up. The standard model says this is how we expect galaxies to rotate, we observe them behaving completely differently, but instead of invalidating the model we come up with some "supernatural" material that we can't detect, have no evidence exists, just to keep the maths right?! That, in my opinion, is not how science should work.
Nov
29
asked Is the standard model so full of holes it is time to start again?
Nov
27
awarded  Yearling
Jan
8
awarded  Popular Question