Leaderboard

Do you mean I’m wrong about what GR says? Certainly not - what I told you is a basic fact about the model. I can show you the maths, if you like, or you can just take my word on it that I spent years studying it in detail, and kind of know what I’m talking about. It’s my area of expertise. Or do you mean GR is wrong about gravity being geodesic deviation? Well, you must realise that it is an exceptionally successful model, which has been extensively tested over the past century. It works far to well for its basics to be “wrong” in any meaningful sense. So it’s probably best if you don’t stick out your neck all too far...

If the 'down' quark contributed 'excess' mass to the neutronium in neutron stars, you would expect ordinary matter, with an excess of neutrons to be heavier. He4 has two protons and two neutrons for a mass ( isotope ) of 4.0026 Da. Li4, an unstable isotope of lithium, has three protons and one neutron, for a mass of 4.037 Da. The Helium nucleus contains 6 'down' quarks,while the Lithium nucleus has 5 'down' quarks. Yet, the Lithium is heavier. The explanation is simple. Most of the mass in a nucleus is binding energy, and the individual quarks ( if you could isolate one ) although of slightly differing masses, only contribute a couple of percent of the masses of protons and neutrons. Don't get me wrong, an imagination is invaluable, but temper it with some education of accepted knowledge.

The problem with only visualizing from a limited knowledge base is obvious. You don't know how to visualize what you haven't learned, so your visualization may not adequately cover the processes. Maths would at least allow you to check your observations against the natural world. Do you have a way to test your ideas? We're following scientific methodology, and if that doesn't work for you, don't you think you need a way to check your process (besides "This makes sense to me") to keep you honest and accurate? Also, the problem with saying GR is wrong has NOTHING to do with your education or lack thereof. Please say it with me. The problem with saying GR is wrong is that you now have to show why GPS works, why time dilates in a gravitational field, why predictions of gravitational waves were correct, basically why the theory allows us to explain so much if it's so wrong. THAT is what you haven't come close to doing. And I don't think it's arrogant to baldly assert that your ideas are right in the face of so much science to the contrary. I think it's lazy, counterproductive, and a waste of time. YOU should be asking questions here, not trying to lecture people who actually work with atomic clocks and aerospace and cosmology, using mainstream physics every day.

You cannot add them. GR is a nonlinear model, which means that, in general, the sum of two valid solutions to the field equations isn’t itself a valid solution. What you’d have to do is solve the equations using a distribution of multiple sources as boundary condition. This is quite difficult, and can, in general, only be done numerically.

Yes of course. That's 0 and 1.

Either side can bitch and complain about a lot of things with regard to election fairness (including how many citizens are not just disallowed to vote while incarcerated, on parole, or even after serving their time; because apparently we wouldn't want any of them to buy in to the collective agreement and obligation...but that's probably off topic)... but the results were the results, with no remaining doubts significant enough to come close to indicating a win for Trump. When Gore lost to Bush it was many orders of magnitude closer and eventually for the good of the country he moved on...where Trump, for the good of Trump...still carries on. Not totally surprising. Why some do it with him...to everyone but Trumps detriment...is more than a little puzzling to me.

Examples 210=102, 310=112

Not quite. Yes binary is a base 2 number representation system. But no, it does not use 2 states on their own to represent a number. That could only ever represent 2 numbers. A number system are designed to represent all the numbers in its particular range. In order to do this you can either use a different symbol for every number, which is obviously inefficient and difficult to learn. Or you can repeat symbols in some way, with each repetition having a different meaning. The smallest count of symbols you need to do this is called is 2 and is called binary. 2 is then called the base. One consequence of using 2 is that it leads to very long representations of numbers, both numerically bigger numbers and fractions. In general, The larger the count of symbols the shorter the repreentation becomes. So if use use 3 symbols we get ternary numbers, also called trinary numbers So if use use 4 symbols we get quaternary numbers So if use use 5 symbols we get quinary numbers So if use use 6 symbols we get seximal numbers So if use use 7 symbols we get septernary numbers So if use use 8 symbols we get octal numbers - note this one does not follow the pattern and is abused by computer science to also mean groupings of binary numbers. So if use use 9 symbols we get nonnary numbers So if use use 10 symbols we get denary numbers commonly, but wrongly, called 'decimal numbers'. So if use use 16 symbols we get hexadecimal numbers or hex numbers. Mixed representations can also be used, such as BCD or binary coded decimal and octal. Up to and including base 10 we use the 10 digits 1 through 9 and zero as the symbols To additional obtain symbols for number systems with a base greater than 10, we use letters from the Latin alphabet, eg hex numbers use the 6 letters A,B,C,D,E and F. Does this help ?

Thank you for that: in the context of Calculus how would you explain differentiation?

Wrong! The moon is weightless in its orbit, having velocity it would continue on in a tangent. Wrong! If the moon were subject to gravity (was not weightless) it would collide with earth. Wrong! The moon is not falling, because for it to fall would require a force this combined with its velocity would cause a massive impact. Gravity does not exist. It is only an effect we 'see' when we drop something for example. Sorry, but you have failed the test. Next!

You mean what Newtonians know about physics. Imperial is not part of any real system and that is why it's not used all that much anymore. Feet go into yards, but yards don't go with miles. Likewise temperature does not fit in either? And one cubic foot is not a gallon for example. Whereas one cubic decimeter is one liter and is one kg of water. You know a lot more about physics than me but despite that I'm going to stick my neck out and say you are wrong. It's the moon's greater velocity that puts it on non-convergent parallel. Whereas ours is a convergent parallel because we are traveling at the same speed as earth.

You mean what Newtonians know about physics. That's right imperial is not part of any real system and that is why it's not used all that much anymore. Feet go into yards, but yards don't go with miles. Likewise temperature does not fit in either. And one cubic foot is not a gallon for example. Whereas one cubic decimeter is one liter and is one kg of water. Sure, earth's rotation decide 'a' velocity, but this is insufficient to make the slightest bit of difference. So, there's no need for me to stand on the north or south pole to argue this the point that I'm making. I've noticed that in the past (doing battle with atheists) that the only people that I got consistent replies from where those that had little understanding of what it is I'm saying. So, check the intellectual arrogance and consider properly what it is that's being said. And, when you see that you have been mistaken you will want to drop off with the replies. I hope in this instance that it does not happen this way and you will have the integrity to continue. That's because my 'prediction' is far more important than this argument we are having when it comes to outcomes. Sure, but I would have weighed slightly less when I moved. And I'd meant significantly slower or faster than earth itself (rather than its surface).

It would be with respect to the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. A Google search gives the velocity of earth at 13M mph. The fastest we could naturally travel would be around 1000 mph at the equator. So, that added to earth's velocity would only shift our point of convergence to one still well under the horizon. My statements are imprecise because I never had a lot of formal education. I am arrogant, but it sure isn't due to intellectuality. My lack of education has forced me to have to visualize the processes that lead to 'gravity' as I know no maths. As pointed out in the opening post that if Time is real, the future exists, then any event occurring in the future will be impossible to stop. If that event is physical as in the Transit of Venus, then it would take physical measures to prevent it from happening. But if a particular event has its cause in society for example, prevention attempts doomed to fail regardless, will be at a social level. So, the reason why I have not been able to present my prediction is that out of principle I have been obliged to instead answer all of the challenges to my position one at a time. A situation that I submit as evidence of both the existence of time and the predicted outcome in that this inability is consistent with chronological barriers needed to applying the necessary social fixes. The second barrier now appearing is that you have decided it (the prediction) is now irrelevant to the discussion. Do you see what I'm saying, barriers won't be physical, but will present themselves as technicalities and catch 22 situations. And all the arrogance in the world should not allow you to dismiss what I say now as I've shown you have been (simply) mistaken with your views in relation to mine.