swansont

“Massively, massively, FRAUDULENT, "developmental posture." The Samster said he's focused on raising funds from UAE (United Arab Emerates.....) so he's counting on the desert oil barons and UAE royal family members there to fall for his money-draining scheme?” You’ve not shown any fraud or criminal behavior. You assume it’s fraud, but you don’t know the details (or haven’t shared them). You don’t have any evidence. It’s all conjecture.

I didn’t specify what the hyperbole was. How is it reasonable to assume that this was it?

Who alleged that it was “non-interesting” The quote was that your thread was not fostering interesting discussion, and, frankly, it did not. It was just hyperbole. Your objections seem to be predicated on the UAE investors not being able to do their own due diligence and make an informed decision. Has any money changed hands, or even been obligated? Your link doesn’t seem to be supporting your claim. It’s not a news story. It’s an ad for a workshop.

A lot of people in science feel an obligation to review articles because others review their submissions. Even if the article is rejected, somebody spent time on it. The system doesn't work if people shirk their responsibilities. But if you feel it’s not something you can do, because you’re not familiar enough with the material, you should say no. That’s basically what I did. The community of my sort of physics was pretty small at that time; there weren’t six degrees of freedom. It was more like two or maybe three.

So if the were aware of you, (perhaps seen a submission of yours) it’s possible this was the reason. I recall for one journal submission I was asked to recommend possible reviewers, i.e. people who did related research. If the author was aware of you, that might be the motivation.

Is this something you’ve done before, or in your area of competence? Do you know how they know of you? Could they have mistaken you for someone else? As has been noted, you have not given much context for the situation.

Your linked article is short on detail, but it says he wants the money to build chip plants. Do you have evidence he’s not going to build these plants?

But the discussion here does not involve the engineering details. The points you raise are financial and alleged criminality. He may be leveraging the AI craze and trying to separate fools from their money, but what is the actual illegality involved here?

It was earlier in this thread.

Does not logically follow. You have not ruled out a common cause. What you have here is a correlation, not causality.

Right. The frequency generators on GPS satellites are shifted down to 10.22999999543 Hz so that their frequency is 10.23 MHz when measured on earth.

Owing to dispersion/diffusion/dissipation, wind has a better defined source than sink and water flow in rivers generally has a well-defined sink, but not source. Makes sense the direction would be in terms of the component that’s more clearly known.

Electrons do not have planetary orbits, and an electron and positron can be in a bound atomic-like system No. To add to what Genady posted - spatial dimensions are orthogonal to each other in basic geometry, which is sorta the opposite of having a new dimension contain other dimensions.

Never heard about #1, but #2 sounds like a delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser

If they’re at the same gravitational potential then there’s no shift between them. There’s a formula you can apply.

! Moderator Note Then you've missed the point of a science discussion board. Since you aren't willing to back up your claims, this is closed.

! Moderator Note We don't dispense medical advice. Consult a doctor.

It would be helpful if you could provide sources, am\nd more detail, for your claims. i.e. what you’re referring to that’s at the bottom of the ocean on top of North Africa, and the diamonds.

“The 50 stars on a field of deep blue circle the eagle and represent the 50 states” https://www.whitehousegifts.com/pages/the-presidential-seal-a-brief-history#:~:text=In it are 13 white,seal on a tan field.

You need to specify where the signal generator is located. Sagnac corrections are important for sending timing signals via satellite; GPS isn’t the only satellite system that is affected. Two-way satellite time transfer (TWSTT) bounces signals off of geostationary satellites, which generally has the signal path covering a larger area and thus has larger Sagnac shifts.

! Moderator Note Chat GPT and their ilk are just amped-up predictive text. The give plausible-sounding, but not necessarily accurate answers. They are not to be used as a technical resource at SFN. That said, if you don’t phrase a question to explicitly include gravity, one might conclude there is no gravitational shift. GIGO

I know where you post from is not in the US. So 27% came from humble beginnings, without some family advantage to exploit. And like others I’ve mentioned, possibly taking advantage of government help. IMO “self-made” is largely PR/propaganda, and feeds the myth that the rich are smarter or work harder than the rest of us.

That’s a false dichotomy. Musk, currently #2 on that list, has taken quite a lot of money from the government in the form of subsidies and loan guarantees. That’s not self-made. Bezos gets plenty of subsidies, too. Any US business gets direct and/or indirect subsidies from government sources. Never saw the movie, but I think he was the villain, a composite character based on sociopaths, not someone whose wisdom is to be emulated. You might consider that your view from the outside doesn’t give you much insight. They’ve been there, done that if they are billionaires. By the same token, neither do you. Citation still needed. From what I’ve seen, so-called self-made successes tend not to acknowledge the outside support they get, in addition to downplaying luck. Kinda like Craig T Nelson’s diatribe, “I was on foodstamps and welfare and nobody helped me” (paraphrase)

Citation needed Or they’re just greedy and have leverage to pay less in taxes. I mean, if it’s inefficiency they’re worried about they could just fund solutions themselves, but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of that going on.

As it was the first time I pointed it out. You don’t make that determination. You can only say if it’s deliberate.