swansont

This is a dealbreaker. We don’t allow AI material for this reason, and you have no basis for saying the idea is solid.

You do realize these two statements contradict each other, right? But it points to the reality that political parties change over time. The parties that existed in the early US were not the two major ones we have today - the early ones went extinct when they no longer appealed to the people. It remains to be seen if the republican party eventually crumbles to dust because of the rampant corruption and other flaws of Trumpism.

There are lots of issues here. You don’t say where ω and Aχ come from, and you are using planck units, which are based on using G, so it’s hidden in there. But you have a much worse problem. A ramification if this is that G is not a constant. You’ve said you need a certain number of chortons in a set volume to get our value of G, and also that the number of chortons is constant, since they were created in the very early universe, before spacetime was created. But the universe was very small back then, and is expanding. So your chorton density, which determines G, must decrease over time. Every fix you make breaking something else is a sign that the idea is flawed. It doesn’t match against how the universe behaves, so it’s wrong. You have to accept that and move on. It’s disappointing to realize that, but it’s part of science, and happens to all scientists.

Right. IOW, when the law wasn't being followed, people were suing the government, not the president. I've seen people make comparison with “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?” (Henry II talking about Becket) because there is no direct legal setbof orders, but the president’s wishes are being carried out (or they’re just doing what they want, as with some actions by Hegseth and Miller)

Unless you can derive the values of α, ω and Aχ without using G or anything that depends on it, it’s trivial. It shows there are no algebra mistakes (or if there are mistakes they cancel), because algebra is self-consistent

Moderator NoteOur rules require that material for discussion be posted, not uploaded or linked to. They also require that ideas be at a stage where you can make specific predictions as a way to test it. In physics, that’s a mathematical model. This fall well short of that. You’ve already gotten some feedback as to shortcoming of your idea, so a model would be moot. You are free to ask questions to expand your knowledge. As you can see, people are happy to engage.

No. I don’t think they considered that congress would be so corrupt. There were indications that republicans would have voted to impeach Nixon, which is why he resigned.

Speculations is not for rambling, or word association, or merely thinking out loud. We expect something reasonably finished, so you can present ways it can be compared to some experiment or observation. (this would include defining your terminology, which you haven’t done very well)

kba has been suspended for following up a thread hijack with an encore

And it was sent to the trash. But I’m not whining about it.

It’s not a revelation that you can “recover” G using a circular argument. It just means there is no algebra error as you rearrange the equations.

And this is not the place for you to develop a theory. It’s not something the rules accommodate, and you don’t get special treatment. Plus, you don’t even see the contradiction here: you “know” that you’re right, but the idea hasn’t been developed. But if the idea hasn’t been developed and tested there is no way to know this!

No, it would have to be congress, via impeachment, as has already been explained. But the one the judge is ordering is not the president.

And that’s the hubris. The fact that you resist correction makes this soapboxing, which is against the rules. We’re 8 pages and 11 months into this thread. I’d say you’ve had your opportunity to make your point.

The president isn’t being taken to court. So how would he be in contempt? Whoever is carrying out the president’s wishes - the head of the department of <whatever> - is doing something they can’t legally do. (Let’s say they are withhold funding from some grant or contract they’ve issued. The recipient sues and the court says they must be paid. But the government doesn’t pay anyway. The department head probably could be held in contempt. The president orders people to do something but it’s top-level/big picture - he isn’t directly involved in the smaller things. Not a lot of people work directly for the president, out of the ~3 million federal civilian employees and ~2 million military (and all the contractors above and beyond that)

I do wish you would put forth the effort to do a minimal familiarization with the topic before you jump in. People shouldn’t have to spoon-feed you US politics 101 and then explain the news. If you are going to be interested in US politics you have an obligation to be minimally informed if you want to participate. (no different from someone being interested in science needing to understand the basics)

But your claim is that polarization and momentum are equal is clearly bogus, and if that ck=laim dorsn’t matter, anything built on it is dubious. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds — Emerson Being consistent doesn’t matter if you’re wrong. But it’s not even clear what you’re being consistent with. Well, no. That’s the point. There is no way to get from one to the other. They are not equal. Why not? You don’t have to detect angular momentum. We’ve detected particles with zero angular momentum — the Higgs boson h=1? Is there any evidence of h having a value other than what we currently understand it to be? Doesn’t that require breaking rotational symmetry? But also: no. That’s not true. I can have two spin 1/2 particles and not have their total angular momentum be spin 1; it can also be spin 0. We see this in e.g. hydrogen. In alphas, we have 4 particles, but total spin is zero.

The moderator note applies to everyone who would contribute. Support with evidence, post it here. I especially want to see the peer-reviewed evidence of uneven expansion from BH formation.

I wasn’t asking for photos of links, or photos. Just a link to the website where you got your information If you’re going to a site on your phone, there must be a url link you can copy and paste

That’s not how commutation relations behave. [a,b] = ab-ba If it’s zero that in no way mean a=b it just means the order you do the operation doesn’t matter How does a constant decompose into anything? And why does the exponent get inverted but not the argument?

You can make any two numbers agree with a fudge-factor that’s determined by assuming they agree.

Oh, please. Google AI makes stuff up; I’ve seen it myself

Such claims should come with a link to their source. As, you might note, others have repeatedly done in the thread.

Oh, come on. You used G to determine alpha. You have not “reproduced” anything; it’s a circular argument. But once spacetime exists and its rules apply, massless particles must move at c

You’re not answering the question. What happens to the chortons?