swansont

You don’t have a mathematical model to show what your idea predicts, and you have not shown what the mainstream model would predict.

That can only be a statement about Newtonian gravity. How could Laplace show anything about relativity? IOW, Laplace showed something about a model known to be incorrect. So what?

Examples have been given that disprove your hypothesis.

Laws that preceded relativity and are known to be approximations. Static fields have no speed of propagation so there it’s incorrect to say they are instantaneous. Are you going to address the objections raised?

Ilya has been banned as a sockpuppet of Ilya Geller and IlGeller

Not sure why you would use the spoiler feature, on that, but it doesn’t explain why that’s a predicted result. There really isn’t much about this that would let anyone else predict outcomes to support or reject the idea. The solutions to the Schrödinger equation are orthogonal to each other. A salient point to this is that there is a mathematical model involved, which allows for prediction and testing.

Any further thought on an experiment that would support your conjecture?

It’s not enough information. The moon could be large and close to the sun, or small and close to earth, or anywhere in between. You just know that the angular size is about the same.

Why would they? If they aren’t moving in a straight line, there must be a force.

But beta and gamma are terms that you’ve defined, related to the Bohr radius; these are not tied to anything outside your model. Your model doesn’t “show” this; that’s a tautology, i.e. circular reasoning. How does this compare with the experimentally observed charge distribution of the electron (electric dipole moment no larger than ~4 x 10^-30 e-cm)

You can’t transfer heat to a body at a higher temperature. (a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics) You have to have another, hotter, heat source, or do work on the stone.

Life being out there is a significantly different proposition than encountering it face-to-face (or whatever passes for a face), since that also requires temporal and physical proximity.

As the quote says, electron orbitals tell you where you might find an electron, not their shape.

Targeted ads are based on information that’s been collected. Ads in general are meant to influence behavior.

It hadn’t been answered experimentally. Theory has to be confirmed. Science has had some surprises that required adjustments in the models.

You get photons, or you get matter/antimatter pairs. We’ve seen reactions that yield more matter than antimatter in some lepton reactions (CP violation), but it doesn’t explain the baryon asymmetry.

If they said Polonium- or Plutonium-free, it’s definitely marketing.

That’s an issue of baryon asymmetry, which is unresolved. Neither one should have won out, but one did, or there was more of one than the other from the start.

That would require tool-making. Human precision grip aids with this, which suggests bipedalism, but it might not be required.

“In a paper published today in Nature, the ALPHA collaboration at CERN’s Antimatter Factory shows that, within the precision of their experiment, atoms of antihydrogen – a positron orbiting an antiproton – fall to Earth in the same way as their matter equivalents.” https://home.cern/news/news/physics/alpha-experiment-cern-observes-influence-gravity-antimatter

There are multiple species of intelligent life on earth. How many depends on where you place the bar. So it’s too simplistic to wonder what alien intelligence would look like, as if only one species has intelligence.

Insulated is not necessarily a good idea. Keeping our brains cool is important.

Dolphins are quite intelligent but don’t look like humans. But aliens would be any species not from earth. There are millions of animal species here, with varying degrees of intelligence, and most are not humanoid. No reason to expect things would be markedly different elsewhere.

But it does mean that the chemical composition varies, so one can’t make a blanket statement about the ink.

Whether the source of the stimulus is inside or outside your body?