swansont

Since you have only presented a strawman of the mainstream view, this is moot. Relativity says nothing about “time frames” and copies of the physical universe. That sounds vaguely like the many-worlds interpretation of QM, but one must note that MWI is an interpretation, and not actually QM. Similarly you seem to be offering an interpretation of the prevailing view, which is not the actual science.

Surely there is some basic premise that’s testable. Every bit of effort you put into telling us how you can’t present your theory is effort you could have put into telling us your theory.

Forest fires are not burning fossil fuels. Forests will grow again, so any CO2 released is offset by growth somewhere. Fossil fuels represent sequestered carbon, stored over many millions of years but released over a much shorter time, and much faster than natural processes could store it again. It is because we were burning fossil fuels that these rates aren’t the same. It didn’t start with the invention of fire - it started with the large-scale burning of sequestered carbon. Most of the time before the industrial era back for hundreds of thousands of years, the CO2 levels were lower than at the outset of the industrial era

! Moderator Note Do not, under any circumstances, take it to PM. Just cease and desist with the pot-stirring and stick to the topic under discussion

As is true for everyone Likewise, we’d like to know your ideas are on solid footing before we waste time learning the subsequent details. e.g. you claim a neutron is an electron magnetically bound to a proton. If that’s a basis for your ideas, I’d like you to justify it. Because if you can’t, i.e. it’s bogus, then anything built on it is bogus as well.

I don’t think this is a zero-sum situation.

Did I call it a force? Did I say anything about the weak interaction at all in this thread? And yet mainstream physics says it’s unitless. If you’re going to use terminology, the default is that it means what is in common use. You agree the constant you want to use is not unitless, so you must mean something else. Come up with a new name for it. Then come up with a model and a way to test it, or evidence from existing experiments That’s more speculation on your part. There’s already a model in use that’s different, and having a bound electron in this way is not consistent with known physics. Plus you need to account for the antineutrino So, again, we need a model and evidence. This is not true just because you say so. I’m not aware that anyone claims this to be the case. Great. Let’s see the model. We want the theory, for starters.

Since the fine structure constant is unitless, and these charges do not have the same units, this cannot be the case. Is it your contention that the fine structure constant is different for protons?

Are they rivals, though? VHS and beta were rivals because you would only use one, but if two approaches can be used in different situations they are complementary, at least to some extent. If approaches have strengths and weaknesses you can tailor your system to what works best in your location or situation.

You can do more than one thing. Preventing carbon emissions doesn’t remove carbon that’s already in the system. Given the state of things, a multi-pronged approach seems prudent.

Planck’s constant. It is the quantum of angular momentum, but is not necessarily the angular momentum of any particular particle. The electron, for example, is spin-1/2. Its angular momentum is hbar * sqrt(s(s+1))

It’s given by h/mc. It does not depend on the angular momentum of the particle

Not in the same way. T = 1/f - that’s reciprocal. As one increases, the other decreases e2 = 8πα · eemax2 is proportional, not reciprocal. Productive for whom? I’m trying to prevent the problem of using symbols that can be easily confused So they can’t be equal using only a unitless constant of proportionality. i.e. your equation is incorrect The singularity? Is this derived somewhere? Presumably you understand it thoroughly, and would be in a position to point out such tests. Unwillingness doesn’t enter into it. I can’t study something you have not presented. I’ve pointed out some fundamental shortcomings of what little you’ve shared. In math, curl is a vector differential operator. If you are not using the standard definition, you need to use a different name. Also, you should peruse our guidelines for posting here. It points out, e.g. “You can't effectively communicate if you are using different definitions than everyone else, or making up nomenclature for things where it already exists.”

Yes, I often listen to LP records and cassette tapes without the need for any external device. Our “reliance” on digital media is because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. If they didn’t, there would have been no drive to adopt the various platforms. Analog media tends to be bulky and difficult to search. The almost-instant availability of digital information is a big argument against “zombification” since we can actually answer questions as they arise, without having to travel access the analog source. It’s far easier to update digital information to keep it current, instead of having to churn out an updated analog version. Analog sources becomes obsolete. What good is having a book from 50 years ago survive, if it doesn’t contain the information from 10 years ago that you are looking for? Is having to go to the library and look through the card catalog to find some books, and then have to look through those books to get the information you want, when you can access wikipedia on your phone? Which option makes us more informed and less zombie-like? You can make the same arguments about the other formats if you aren’t cherry-picking. Vinyl records can become obsolete, too - do they make 78s anymore? They stopped making them in 1959 (I know this because I found it with a computer search, rather than having to go look it up in a book, which might be in the local library, which is currently closed). How easy is it to watch betamax videos? Digital media can be copied quite easily. The information survives if properly stored and cared for. CDs have been around for >40 years

Topological monopoles are not what joigus was referring to. (and aren’t actually monopoles) If the are bipolar magnets then this should be the dipole moment; your equation does not show a reciprocal, and you should use something other than e to represent what you’re talking about, since e is already the fundamental charge. How do your units work here? Magnetic charge and electric charge would not be the same units. How would one test your hypothesis? That doesn’t explain what it is, and without the details of how you would generate one and send it somewhere, is not very illuminating.