exchemist

What do you mean by unique in this context? If you mean novel, i.e. one nobody knows about yet, then obviously we can't help you. If you want a UV absorber that only absorbs in a hydrated form, then I'm sure there must be candidates. Possibly some of the organic dyes even. But hard to think of offhand.

Not sure you are right about environmentalism. It seems to be the dominant ideology among the young these days, as I know from the associates of my 19yr old son, now at university. .

For that wouldn't you need evidence of phenomena that can't be predicted by existing physics? Though I suppose dark energy might be a candidate. But there are plenty of different kinds of mechanics: quantum, statistical, Newtonian, Hamiltonian........

Really? These people are still selling indicator paper impregnated with CoCL2. https://uk.vwr.com/store/product/2994210/cobalt-ii-chloride-paper-in-strips-for-detection-of-water-vapour

If Fox loses, it certainly wont be green for them. But I'm not sure why you see Reich vs. Fox as the only 2 choices. Surely we are going somewhere else now, aren't we?

Anhydrous cobalt chloride. Goes from blue to pink and is often used to colour dessicants such as silica gel, so you know if they are still active or not.

Having been rapped over the knuckles by the mods for referring to Brazil as "where the nuts come from", I suppose I should explain that this is a reference to a catchphrase from "Charley's Aunt". This is a late Victorian farce, subsequently made into more than one film, with a plot involving an Oxford undergraduate in drag, pretending to be an aunt returned from Brazil, "where the nuts come from". https://www.comedy.co.uk/film/charleys_big_hearted_aunt/about/

Editions Saint Honoré, which published the book you refer to, is listed here as a publisher not to be used on any account: https://piegesauteur.blogspot.com/2015/11/liste-maisons-dedition.html ("pieges auteur" meaning traps for author.) But you are in Brazil, right? Where the nuts come from? And according to this you have even written to President Lula about your ideas: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368242832_Request_sent_to_President_Lula Hmm.

OK. What I would do then is to look up the journal on Wikipedia or something. You can quite quickly tell from that which ones are prestigious or at least well-recognised. It can also sometimes be worth looking up the authors, especially when there is only a single author saying something eccentric, just to make sure he or she is not a well-known crank or charlatan. For suspicious journals you can check Beall"s List of potentially predatory journals: https://beallslist.net For suspected cranks there there is the Encyclopedia of American Loons: https://americanloons.blogspot.com/2022/ , though sadly this is very incomplete and only deals with one country.

There is no recognised term quantum magnetism, so far as I am aware. The OP seems to be referring to simple, day-to-day ferromagnetism, of the kind exhibited by an ordinary permanent magnet. The term "quantum" seems to add no information.

To my mind this is all getting too speculative to be useful. I can only make a few suggestions as to why it is yellow. Could be protein. Could be a bit of one of the coloured porphyrin type compounds I mentioned. Could be a trace of iron, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron(III)_acetate . Or something else entirely. Eggshells, like just about anything biological, are not a pure chemical substance. But by all means try heating it to see what happens to the colour, or recrystallising to see if it comes out whiter.

Just in case of any doubts about authorship, here is Gareth's paper on Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Gareth-Lee-Meredith-1/On-The-Elastic-Paper-Part-II-A-Rebuttal-To-Accusation-and-Further-Insights-When-I-proposed-this-new-theory-a-critiqu?ch=15&oid=100930088&share=8daaadb7&srid=uUK54g&target_type=post

There is something called the journal impact factor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor It's far from perfect but it's a lot better than nothing. But I wouldn't have thought you would get a view of what science, collectively, says on a topic from reading research papers. I'd have thought they would be too narrowly focused. How is it that you are in a position where you need to review these articles? Are you a journalist or something?

This is gibberish. I'm out.

What do you mean by "quantum magnetism" in this context?

But they are NOT physically realisable. Field lines are a construct, as I said in my previous post, rather like the contours on a relief map. Like field lines, contours are not allowed to cross, but they can touch (at precipices and cliffs). Field lines are a way for us to picture how the field is distributed in space, that's all. They are not really there. When you go walking in the hills, you don't seen any contour lines, do you?

No. Don't forget these "lines" (which are just a construct to show how the field behaves) are deemed to be of zero thickness. So they cannot "overlap", unless they actually cross. Which they obviously don't if they emanate from a single point. They simply "tend towards" touching, as you trace them back to the origin.

Ballocks. If they start from a common origin of course they don't cross.

Can you show how you get these results?

No, let's start at the beginning. Why did you start this thread with g/G = 1 AU? What relation does it bear to any of the above?

Nobody thinks g is universal. It quite obviously isn't. F=mg leads to different F for a given m, depending on where you are in relation to the centre of the Earth. In fact that is one of the things Newton's Law of Gravitation correctly predicts. It is beginning to look as if you do not understand the difference between Newton's 2nd Law of Motion and his Law of Gravitation. You seem to be confusing g and G, in other words. This is fairly - how shall I put this? - strange for someone claiming to be doing research on gravitation.

I was wondering that.

This looks quite mad. To pick two of the most obviously wrong-headed assertions:- - There obviously is evidence, all around us, of attraction between masses. If there were not, what would stop objects on the Earth's surface, including you, from floating off? Invisible velcro? - Zero point energy has nothing to do with neutrinos. It is a quantum mechanical concept that in many bound states there is a ground state which has a non-zero energy associated with it. For instance, you have zero point energy the electronic ground state of an atom. You also have zero point energy in the ground vibrational state of a molecule. No neutrinos involved.

Aha, now we have it. Thanks for coming clean at last. So you are trying to pick orbital mechanics apart, to see if variable G can explain dark matter. Fine. I'm slightly intrigued, though as to what a nonsense equation like g/G = 1 AU has to do with that. It does not bode well for your study.

Diverging lines can perfectly well diverge from a common origin, surely?