exchemist

You (or your AI) wrote this in your opening post: "When we ascend to higher altitudes, air becomes thinner and pressure decreases. Logically, if atmospheric pressure were the source of air movement, it should accumulate above, not diminish." If you are, as you say, aware of standard atmospheric physics, how do you reconcile that statement with the explanation I linked from the NPL as to why pressure reduces with altitude?

The exponential growth in AI spambots infesting forums such as this one.

Oh dear. This is verging on the delusional. The first requirement for anyone proposing a new hypothesis is to understand the current science beforehand and identify its shortcomings. You quite obviously don't understand physics and have not carried out this essential first step. For example, you have not even stopped to find out why the atmosphere thins with height. You have just assumed that, because you personally don't understand why, then nobody does, and then have gone on to propose your own idea about it. Here, though, is the reason, from the UK National Physical Laboratory: https://www.npl.co.uk/resources/q-a/atmospheric-altitude-pressure-changes You could have found that out in about 30 seconds, if you had bothered to look it up. There is also this thing called Ockham's Razor. Science employs this principle implicitly. You don't introduce strange new entities, like your extra dimensions, when you can explain atmospheric phenomena perfectly well without them. It is unlikely that people who know some science will take you seriously when you display such failure to find out what science already says before putting forward your home-made alternatives. Nobody owes you a hearing: you have to earn it, by showing where the current science fails and how your hypothesis is an improvement. As for this stuff about your ideas having been "published", the web resources you mention don't check anything. They are just tools to help researchers. As @TheVat points out, you can "publish" any old rubbish on them. They tell you nothing at all about the credibility of the material. Actually, though, I wonder whether perhaps your real motivation may be religious, not scientific. What you (or your AI) has written feels as if you are trying to find a way to introduce the Koranic concept of the "veil" into science. It is quite a nice metaphor for the way that science uses successively improved models of the physical world, as it gropes its way towards an ever better picture of reality. (In Christianity St. Paul has much the same idea, with a different metaphor: "Now we see through a glass, darkly".) But don't let religious ideas lead you into the error of trying to introduce obscure and unnecessary concepts into science, to account for things that can explained already without them. The job of science is to demystify the natural world, not to make it more obscure.

Authorea is just a paper-writing tool.

It is also how time is wasted reading chatbot nonsense. We need to be persuaded that is not what this is.

Thanks but I have already tried that. Safari has given me trouble on one or two other websites, notably when I tried to get a subscription to Nature updates. I gave up on that one in the end. But the funny thing is that this glitch has just appeared out of nowhere, having worked fine before.

Tried Cmd R and logging in using the Private function and still no luck. I may have to wait for the next OS update, I guess , and see if that fixes it.

I’d rather converse with a human being.

“Framework”, yet again.

I think you should explain the outstanding questions on your algebra before moving on to other topics. How does E² = p² + m²? Isn't there a problem with dimensions?

Hmm, restarting has not fixed it on the laptop. But as it works on the tablet, must be a laptop issue. Very odd. Better delete cookies and try again. That didn't work either. I'm stumped. I'm on Safari with a Mac.

OK thanks all, seems to work from my tablet, so I’ll restart the browser on my laptop and see if that does the trick.

I find the [...] button at top right doesn't work this morning, so I can't edit my posts. Is the problem my end or it is the website?

"identities like E² = p² + m²". Eh? Where did you get this from? The Sirius Cybernetics Corporation?

I doubt anyone disagrees with what you are saying here. It is just that the mere act of perception does not get one very far on its own. One then needs two further things: to identify the perception as relating to a physical phenomenon and to check that the perception - of the phenomenon- is shared by others, i.e.not just a one-off misattributed experience, due to something other than the presumed phenomenon). Only then can you say you have something concrete, relating to the objective physical world, which can be explored and eventually fitted to some theory of the physical world.

Sure. It's just that, as someone else on the forum pointed out a few weeks ago, this world is beloved of chatbots when given the task of dressing up crank ideas about physics, so I tend to feel a bit jaded when I read this word from a newcomer with , er, unconventional ideas about physics.

Ah a framework. That word again. Hmm. Since energy is a property of a physical system, I can't see any way it can make sense to identify spacetime with it. So I think this concept falls at the first fence.

Déjà vu all over again. Well played, Nostradamus! 😁

This is now the 3rd bullshit medical suggestion from this moron. Perhaps enough?

OK it wasn’t my favourite thing at first either. I got used to it. But pV/T = constant means p1V1/T1 must equal p2V2/T2, right? So if you have p1, V1 and T1 from your experiment, you can set that equal to pSTP.VSTP/TSTP , and since pressure and temperature at STP are standard, they are given, so you just need to find V STP, by rearranging. The thing is you know that, for any gas, 1 mole at STP occupies 22.4litres. So once you have converted the volume you have measured experimentally into litres at STP, you know how many moles were generated by the reaction.

Judging by the title, this is not quantum theory. By the way, you need to post material for discussion here rather than expecting us to download stuff. And what you post needs to be your words, not AI.

It is in my second post of 9th October. As @sethoflagos poi ted out, it utilises the principle that pV/T = constant.

So is this an energy equation, in units of, say Joules? If so, where does information come in? There’s also the problem that not all forms of energy are associated with waves, so in many cases there won’t be any corresponding frequency or wavelength.

This is too much of a hotch-potch to deal with sensibly, with a mixture of statements and questions, all of them too brief to be clear to the reader. Can you explain what exactly you want to ask? The Wurtz bit at the end seems to be a duplicate of a separate question, which I have tried to answer.

These terms and structures are rather garbled. It is bromomethane, not bromomenthane. Ethane is C2H6, i.e. H3C-CH3. And n-Butane is C4H10, i.e. H5C2-C2H5. The mechanism is explained here, in the good old libretexts that I have recommended to you before: https://chem.libretexts.org/Workbench/Chemistry_LHS_Bridge/12%3A_Alkanes/12.03%3A_Synthesis_of_Alkanes/12.3.03%3A_Wurtz_reaction