swansont

The Bohr model is demonstrably wrong, though it’s based on correct elements of physics, so some of its predictions are correct (e.g. the energy levels). But electrons don’t have actual trajectories. Nor do they have a measurable size (experiments give an upper bound which is smaller than your number)

But the thread is about forced treatment, according to the title. Your own story sounds like you being aware of the situation has helped, and might be about whether voluntary treatment is an avenue. It also points toward actual actions being the thing to respond to, rather than just having the disorder/condition. It’s also IMO an argument for treatment/rehabilitation being available rather than just punishment for actions.

But the traits represent a spectrum rather than a binary condition - a lot if people probably exhibit the traits to some degree, from time to time. Is there a non-arbitrary way you draw the line? There’s also a lot of mentions of “likely” to act certain ways, meaning that it’s not a certainty that anyone with these traits actually breaks any law. The link says “People with ASPD often exhibit behavior that conflicts with social norms” so basically you would be “treating” people for being different, which is a very dangerous approach and one that’s been abused in the past, and being abused today.

But not your thread, so this is hijacking

Inner tension is only possible if there is a structure to it, meaning it’s made if something. What’s it made of. And the divergence of the electric field is equal to the charge, meaning field lines begin and end on charges. You said they don’t disappear. Now you’re moving the goalposts. You claimed “we cannot to imagine something which is absolutelly impossible in our Universe” and now you’re limiting this. Modifying it is basically an admission that your claim was bogus.

We ban these users when one of us logs on. Their posts are removed. The proper action by our members is to report the posts (tap/click on the … in the upper right), not to respond to them. The measures recently implemented did flag and hide some of the spam. One hopes that it’s a “learning” algorithm and gets even better as time goes on.

Let me clarify a few things: “Reading the paper” can’t be a requirement, per our rules. As I pointed out before, material for discussion must be posted here. Not conveyed via links or uploads Attacking what you post is not attacking you. They are quite distinct. Challenging your claims is what happens in science. Why do you expect grinding? Is there a mainstream claim that pi “governs” curvature? Please share it. In GR, energy-momentum is the primary thing thst governs curvature Again, who claims this? You’re arguing against a strawman Post the idea. But don’t post the AI stuff

The only remedy for “going after him” personally is impeachment, which won’t happen because his party controls both houses of congress and have shown loyalty to him rather than to the country. His actions have been opposed in court to the extent that they can. But some judges he’s appointed have shown similar loyalties as congress. Are you incapable of reading news yourself? I’m not sure why this has to be spoon fed to you. You might get a pass for mot understanding the details of US government if you live elsewhere, but this is basic reporting, and you have internet access. You need to put forth some effort here.

Does the discussion of health benefits of low or zero g include the effect of vibrations and pulling 3 or 4 g’s during launch to get there?

You introduce some novel physics descriptions and properties here, but there’s no physics.

But the CMB photons came from the so-called recombination epoch, where the photons reached thermal equilibrium, and the redshift is a thermal effect from expansion. But there must be some way, in principle, to get experimental confirmation. Not being able to do it yet is not the same as not being able to do it at all.

No, I want evidence - actual evidence - that photons didn’t exist in the early universe. Using your conjecture as evidence is circular reasoning The redshift argument is based on the thermodynamics of expansion, but recombination is not accounted for here - it would be like extrapolating a temperature of H2O across either or both phase transitions.

No. I’m not sure why this isn’t registering: material for discussion must be posted. You can’t just point us to a link or an uploaded file.

But if they’re massless particles they must move at the speed of light. I’m losing patience with the way you continue to ignore our rules regarding relying on links And I asked you what evidence there is to support the notion that photons didn’t exist. Repeating yourself isn’t evidence. And backtracing the CMB to before the so-called recombination era is somewhat misguided.

You didn’t answer my question. Just repeated yourself. Assertion is not evidence. You said it’s matter, but it’s secret matter? Can’t say what it’s made of? What properties does it have - angular momentum, mass, etc.? What happens to it when the field disappears? Where does it come from when a field is created? So fields don’t start or end on charges? Maxwell’s equations are wrong? You’re not the first person to claim this nonsense. Plenty of science can be understood without philosophy, and we can imagine impossible things. There are plenty of crackpots who think perpetual motion can be achieved, as just one example.

Moderator NoteA post was hidden by the board software as possible spam (so, good news: the software is doing something!) and being evaluated I’m not sure of the settings, so I don’t know if it was because of the number of links, because some links were repeated, or because some were embedded in the text (we don’t like it when people do that — we’d rather see where a link is going to take us) or some admixture of the three. Coming from a new member is part of the equation, AFAICT

We’re a discussion board, not your blog. Was there something you wanted to actually discuss?

Yes, this is based on first-semester physics and high-school geometry. As far as trajectories go, we’ve landed a probe on an asteroid. The skills exist. This is a discussion board — was there something you wanted to discuss?

Degrees and radians are not units. They’re more like a convention of how you are dividing a circle — into 360 pieces or 2pi pieces — and are marking which one you’re using.

Same logic applies to 1 being the ratio of the length of one side of a square to another. It’s a property of a square, just like pi is a property of a circle. Pythagoras gives us relationships for a right triangle. It’s a tautology, not magic. If you had varying properties they wouldn’t be these shapes (at least in a Cartesian system) Rules say you need to post material for discussion here. Not via links or uploaded files.

Yes, you’ve made my point. (though your proposal says energy density, so the details might be different) Your scenario can only be realized very, very early in the universe. I didn’t mention photons; you brought that up, but how would you show experimentally that photons didn’t exist? I asked about what happens after spacetime is created? Why aren’t things attracted to these massive particles?

I’m not sure it would be considered heat loss anyway; you’re converting thermal energy into the mass energy of the chortons. It’s more like a phase transition. What about after?

How does the energy and matter interact with the chorton field? Your math isn’t rendering, so it’s not really helpful.

How? Where does the angular momentum come from for these spin-2 particles? Yes. You’re forming these chortons which have energy, so for each one there must be a discrete drop in available energy in the field, so the temperature must decrease.

Crucial as in we require it. Indeed. And you provide no experiment to compare it with, so there’s no way to falsify it.