swansont

Which doesn’t matter if people ignore the law. Congress, too. How’s that going?

I’m not sure what you would add. People who are flouting the rules aren’t going to be stopped by more rules, and the same for people who choose not to enforce them

What did you find after asking this on a search engine?

Laser light is not a plane wave; usually it has a gaussian profile, and some (e.g. laser diodes) diverge because of diffraction. The dots are likely laser speckle

I was taught it was more like 1/10, and you do it 3-4 times. More water and there’s diminishing returns on dissolving contaminants. As Peterkin points out, too much and you don’t get any physical dislodging of particles.

You persist in focusing on the wrong argument Yes, causality is a separate issue.

But the point is that you have to do something to it to turn it white. It’s the part that turns white.

That is (or was) something in the registration process one had to explicitly acknowledge. ! Moderator Note If that’s going to be your attitude, it would be hypocritical for you not to afford that same freedom to other members. Their attitude manifests in downvoting you. It’s not their problem, so there’s no point in going off-topic to complain about it.

I thought the white part was the shell (on some eggs). On the inside, there’s the yellow part and the clear part. The latter turns white when cooked.

You continue to attack a straw man. Nobody is arguing for the particle theory of light, or the wave theory of light. It’s not one or the other. That was settled more than a century ago. If you continue to claim that light never exhibits particle properties you will continue to be wrong, and also contradict your own descriptions of light exhibiting particle behavior.

Look at any species that has subpopulations; sometimes this results in speciation if the populations remain isolated and enough time passes. But you are correct in one thing; it’s my understanding that the races are arbitrary.

Nobody is making the argument that it was. You’re attacking a straw man. The argument is that localized interaction is particle-like behavior, and inconsistent with wave-like behavior. Please take the time to notice that this does not mention the behavior at other places or times. Also that this is inconsistent with “never acts like a particle” No, light doesn’t act that way, but waves do. If you have objects floating on water and a wave goes by, the wave interacts with all the objects. It doesn’t pick one. This is not merely my opinion, this is what physicists deduced over a century ago.

The primordial atom was Georges Lemaître‘s idea. But speaking of temperature, it was too hot to have nucleons until about 10^-6 sec, according to Big Bang theory. https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2018/12/the-first-element

How is that consistent with "never"?

You said you have a 1 mp at t = 1 tp and now you say you have 1 nucleon. As I stated, these are different by ~19 orders of magnitude in energy. Well, not really. It's the shortest time we can make sense of in current cosmology theory (i.e. in GR)

Pretty sure this is not part of Big Bang cosmology, and is not consistent with your model, either. A nucleon's energy is around 1 GeV, while the Planck energy is ~10^19 times bigger

My.interpretation has announced their desire not to return with a foul-mouthed tirade, and we have taken them up on their offer

The equivalence between a charged sphere and a point charge (and similarly with mass and a uniform sphere for gravitation) is shown in the shell theorem. Can you point to the error in its derivation?

And yet you previously stated that it does not exhibit any particle-like behavior. ("I see light as a wave and never as a particle.") If it exhibits particle-like behavior, you can't then deny it does so. You can't have it both ways. No, I don't. My position is the opposite of this, and that's the point: such wave behavior is not observed when the light interacts. This is the second time in as many posts you have misread/misconstrued what I wrote. You stated that your view is that light never behaves as a particle. I am rebutting this claim. Thus, I am giving examples of where particle-like properties are observed, and contrasting them with what wave behavior would be expected but is not observed.

That wasn’t the example I presented. It was a 1 eV transition. A wave doesn’t deliver its energy in a localized fashion.

Because we investigate all possibilities. You don’t just look at circumstances that support your thesis; that’s cherry-picking. I gave examples that show your claim to be wrong.

Setting values to 1 is a trick used by theorists who don't care about calculations and don't want to carry extraneous terms in their equations. Its usefulness is lost when you actually want to compare to an actual measured or predicted value. 1 planck mass per planck volume is a density. The problem is the critical density is a far, far different value. Why is there a difference?

The critical mass density of the universe equates roughly to 10^-123 planck masses per cubic planck length, and we're thought to be very close to this number You are claiming this number is 1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#In_cosmology) That's a pretty large disparity All the more reason to be meticulous in citing accepted physics, and distinguishing your own ideas.

Doesn't want to be quoted? Isn't this in the literature anywhere? If you can't point to a textbook, or at least a peer-reviewed articles, then it's a dubious claim. Further, "single particle" is not synonymous with "Planck mass"

Where does the BB theory tell us this?