Ghideon

Sorry, no. Please provide a picture with the forces and their point of application. It sounds like you claim that the laws of physics as we know them are unable to predict the mechanical forces for a human standing on toes. More clarity is required to locate issues with measurements or possible misunderstanding. Newtonian physics have known limitations but in the context of this thread the laws of Newton are applicable.

I have read the post again and it is not clear which force you refer to. Please clarify your proposal, a picture with the forces may be helpful? Here is a quick example (my anatomy knowledge is limited; use picture as inspiration and not science facts) Maybe you mean the maximum force calves' muscles can exert as a force "A" in the picture but you seem to measure and discuss force "B? edit: Disclaimer; length of arrows A and B are not an indictor of magnitude of forces, the example picture is not intended to correctly display how force A relates to force B, it's just an illustration to help the discussion.

I think we have had this discussion already*. The forces are as predicted by physics. Please draw a simple diagram with the forces you are uncertain about so that we can clarify the situation and correct misunderstandings. I have assumed you mean the action/reaction forces floor<->person.If you wish to discuss forces in the foot we can probably do that using a simple model. *) https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/121169-massive-human-body-can-stand-on-its-weak-feet-toes/?tab=comments#comment-1130639

Your are affecting the ground with the force of your weight* and ground will push back with an equal and opposite force. Stating on your toes does not change that. Basic physics and something you can verify with a bathroom scale or a seesaw. *) m*g

If you enter a black hole feet first being able to see your feet would imply that photons move against gravity from beyond the event horizon to reach the eyes of the individual falling in. Unless I misunderstand the thought experiment that does not sound correct. Photons beyond event horizon can't travel in the direction away from the black hole's centre.

It sounds like the scale is broken or there is an issue with the measurement. If your maximum force in a toe press exercise would be 80N then your would not be able to stand on your toes if your weight is 57kg. If you try to stand on your toes on a typical bathroom scale the scale shows your weight. (I have not watched the video)

The issues with how the initial question was formulated have been pointed out. And answers have been provided. Mine are here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124534-extended-field-theory/?do=findComment&comment=1170617 https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124534-extended-field-theory/?do=findComment&comment=1170641 (Other members have also answered.)

Thanks for posting the link. It looks worth to read through* and the introduction har a good description: @Axion the above looks to me as similar to Newton -> Theory of relativity. A new theory will be an extension and standard model predictions will still be applicable within its known limitations. Just as Newton laws of motion will continue to be used at low relative velocities. *) I'l need to gather some knowledge do get through the the details.

I meant can you do the example and show the factors of the number I provided? Sorry for being unclear. Ok.

I do not understand the claims or the proof* but it is interesting, can you show how larger numbers are handled? For instance RSA-100** 1522605027922533360535618378132637429718068114961380688657908494580122963258952897654000350692006139 How does the algorithmic complexity compare to other methods for integer factorization? *) Math and primes are not my area of expertise **) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_Factoring_Challenge

Hope this helps: yes the equality holds; quick check using Wolfram alpha gives that is equal to reference: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(6^0.5-2^0.5)%2F4 Not sure what that means

Not according to the video*. Emphasis mine: Note the "if". "Could the Standard Model Be Wrong?" does not equal "The standard model is wrong." And the fact that an accepted model has known limitations also does not mean it is "dead" or "gone". *) Source: your link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQjXHoZitU0&t=230s Side note: the research is interesting! I'm curious about future results and publications from Cern and LHC regarding lepton universality.

Im sure there are good comments on some videos on YouTube. Personally I prefer to get help from the members here at the forums. Sorry, your point seems to be lost in translation*. If my replies are off topic there is a report function you can use to notify the moderators. *) English is not my first language.

Reading the article you provided; https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/particle-model.cfm Emphasis mine: And Leptoquarks have not yet been observed according to your link. And Leptoquarks are encountered in various extensions of the Standard Model. So the standard model is not dead.

Thanks for the link, I'll read it later to see if it is relevant to your claims. It is not laziness, it's conservation of energy. And it's off topic as you say. Please open a separate thread for further discussion.

Can you provide some reference supporting your claim? Standard model works well within it's area of applicability and there are known issues with the model. The standard model is not "gone". Instead of posting speculative unsupported claims, how about discussing the actual question? (See above, my attempt to clarify) edit: x-post with @MigL.

The links you provided in the opening post (a paper about Dirac Strings and a link to a paper with non mainstream topics) were confusing. Let's try to reformulate your question: A "true"* magnetic monopole would be a new elementary particle, and would violate Gauss's law for magnetism ∇⋅B = 0. A monopole of this kind has never been observed in experiments. If such a monopole was ever observed in an experiment, how would that affect the Gauss's law and the state of the standard model?** Is the above what you intended to ask? *) We do not consider monopoles in condensed-matter systems or monopoles in topological interpretations. **) Some phrases inspired by wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole

I had hoped for some discussion regarding hypothetical elementary particle magnetic monopole vs the condensed-matter physics term “magnetic monopole” and the possible confusion it may have created in this thread and in the linked Meyl paper. You seem to treat the monopoles studied by condensed-matter groups as if they were a new elementary particle rather than an emergent phenomenon in systems of every day standard model particles.

and also There is room for misunderstanding: The author of the paper* does not mention Dirac strings. The discovery made at Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres** does not claim to be discovery of a magnetic monopole resulting in "div B>0" as far as I can tell. "scalar waves" as referenced in opening post* is not accepted in mainstream models. It is not clear what is meant by "div B>0" in the paper* when it is stated in the context of concepts outside the mainstream. So clarification may be needed if you want answers that complements those already given by other members. *)The link you gave: https://www.oatext.com/longitudinal-magnetic-waves-trigger-higher-atp-levels-and-extend-the-aging-process-of-plants.php **) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163725.htm

I tried to give you a short answer regarding your initial question with the intent to initiate some discussion, so far you have ignored that.

New scientific discoveries will be made. Current models will be modified or, in some cases, replaced by new and better models. That is expected and an exiting part of science. Some theories that are supported by large amount of evidence is less likely to be completely replaced. And many ideas that were completely wrong according to old theories will still be completely wrong when new discoveries are made. Complaining about dogma or elitism will not change that.

The Dirac strings mentioned in the link https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163725.htm does not imply that the quote in the opening post is correct: "scalar waves" does not seem to exist at all in mainstream physics.

Your text look like the output from some algorithm, based on Markov Chains(?), that generates random sentences. This seem to require more time and effort than I am willing to provide at this time.

And how is that related to the discussion in this tread?

Wouldn't that mean that the rest of the building will be supplied with water that has passed through the radiator? Over here that would not be ok according to regulations; water from cold water mains is intended for consumption and is not supposed to pass through custom equipment. Maybe I misinterpret you idea?