swansont

Posting a link is not against the rules, but the rules require that the discussion can take place without clicking on the link. Can you explain what you mean by the radius being “fit to a toroidal geometry” “When all values are expressed in base units, half the outer toroidal surface area equals the Boltzmann constant” How do you get from square meters to J/K? (or, in base units, kg-m^2/sec^2 K)

Can you demonstrate that this premise is true?

We can revisit this when you have one, so there’s actual science to discuss

! Moderator Note Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. You’ve provided none. No model, no experimental confirmation. Nada. Zilch. That makes this thread a candidate for the trash can.

How does this have any bearing on the alleged design of an alleged creator? You do understand the da Vinci didn’t actually witness the last supper (painted just before 1500). How can the symbolism in it mean anything relevant? And Tennessee? Which only came into being a few hundred years after da Vinci?

Which is a preprint server (not peer-reviewed) and the paper was published in Physics Essays, which does not instill much confidence. If it can be anything, that’s not meaningful. But all models must be confirmed by experiment. What experiment would confirm this additional energy - which can’t be converted into other forms, if it always appears in the equations on both sides. Which means that anything that depends on the deBroglie wavelength is wrong. How do you reconcile this with experiments where the mainstream equation works? As I noted, I’ve done beta decay experiments where the parent is at rest.

If you are arguing for design, then everything needs to fit the pattern. Twenty isn’t even a drop in the bucket. But if you’ve already decided that this is the case, one is probably enough - but don’t be fooled into thinking that this is evidence. It’s credulity. The bar for science is much, much higher.

The plural of “anecdote” is not “evidence” What you’ve presented is confirmation bias - you notice the coincidences, and ignore whatever doesn’t fit the pattern.

How do you get from this to the math of interference? How do you test that this is the correct model?

What problem does this solve, that isn't already addressed?

"An artist's impression of gravitational waves from two orbiting black holes." This shows the black holes and the gravitational waves, not black holes as waves.

And there is no phase involved in this. Where did you get this drawing?

Then what is “since the falling spiral of the two would be 180 degrees out of phase, would not the resulting gravitational wave represent only the difference in mass of the two?” referring to? The gravitational waves do not undergo a “falling spiral” (and it’s gravitational wave; a gravity wave is something different) The phase relationship of what? There is no combination of waves here.

Then it doesn’t matter, since the energy appears on both sides of an equation. The energy wouldn’t be something you can convert to other forms. How would you test to see if the energy existed? Electrons and positrons can form positronium, with a ground state of -6.8 eV, which classically corresponds to a KE of 6.8 eV and a PE of -13.6 eV. This would not give you a high-speed electron or positron. Published in Physics Essays, which is known to publish crackpot material. I’ve done experiments where radioactive potassium isotopes were held in a magneto-optic trap, meaning they had almost no KE - the residual speeds would be a few cm/s - and they underwent decay.

Black holes are not waves

What would the phase of the spiral have to do with anything?

Rest energy was derived in one of Einstein’s 1905 papers Inconsistent with e.g. electron-positron annihilation Evidence? Some particles that “participate” don’t even exist before the decay occurs Citation?

1. It’s not up to you, and 2. “normal” is overrated

Not if you’ve learned some quantum mechanics

This is not an experiment That’s an aphorism, not actual physics, and applies to macroscopic systems. The concept of pressure from kinetic theory doesn’t work at the subatomic level. That speaks to your understanding, which carries no weight.

https://newrepublic.com/post/175598/gm-ceo-mary-barra-30-million-salary-uaw-strike “[GM CEO] salary has increased 34 percent over the last four years, while in four years workers’ pay has only increased by 6 percent. Under the current contract, the $18 per hour starting pay for autoworkers is about 36 percent below where it would be if the 2007 starting wage had kept up with inflation.” (average inflation from 2007-2020 was about 2%

What experiment would confirm this? But consistent with experiment. When photons or electrons are sent individually through a double-slit, you eventually get an interference pattern.

A summary would be appropriate. You can post excerpts, as necessary.

OK, it’s not identified as a roller coaster, and the implication is that you are starting from rest. You can use s = 1/2 at^2

Can you post the entire question, verbatim, please?