swansont

A saying I have seen/heard people utter. Google tells me it's a way of saying that history repeats itself (from Nietzsche, apparently)

I think that professors are probably no different than any other professional of similar accomplishment. Twisting the rules and backstabbing are not confined to academia. I have known some pretty awesome professors, and some who are assholes. If your experience is different, part of it might be you.

No, not clairvoyant or ad hoc. You could investigate it, but it would require learning some physics. Neutrinos rarely interact but the do interact, and from the reactions you can deduce their properties. They never "replaced" them, and what physics has against them is that the model doesn't work. The model, I note, that you have not produced or discussed in any detail. No model of how an interaction between a proton and an electron could confine an electron to the nucleus, or how an electron in general could be confined to such a small region, and have this remain consistent with the physics that we know. And if it isn't, then you need new physics, which you haven't given us. Presenting the neutrino as an antiphoton doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the physics discussion you need to be prepared to have. You've written one sentence of the abstract. Where's the physics?

As I said, gas engines probably have more friction, and of course, there's the combustion.

I would guess it's because you hav no evidence that CBD is an alternative to a vaccine. Contradicting accepted science.

! Moderator Note That’s available in textbooks and journal articles. Summaries can be found on the web. Mainstream science is the default position here; nobody is required to reinvent the wheel. However, you own the burden of proof for alternative scenarios. Your posts need to be more than colorful pictures. You need a falsifiable model, capable of making predictions, and evidence that fits with the model.

! Moderator Note I’m not sure which infraction is worse: appealing to conspiracy, linking to other discussion boards as “evidence” or labeling all “footnote” links with the number 1. What I am sure of is this thread is closed.

Better than “time is a flat circle” because I have no idea what that’s supposed mean.

! Moderator Note I was hoping for a rigorous explanation, rather than a superficial hand-wave. Answer Bufofrog’s question (How could you use a scale to measure this alternative weight?) or this is finished.

No, it’s not. Time perception is time perception, not time.

You need to establish the validity of this “equivalent mass” nonsense. Your other speculation is based on this speculation. The rules don’t permit you to bootstrap like this.

! Moderator Note Moved from philosophy (which this isn’t). Note that we are discussing science here, not myth. IOW, it’s why the flood story is contrary to physical law, and/or the real origin of the myth.

! Moderator Note Split because you shouldn’t hijack someone else’s discussion to make proclamations like this

False, and you would need to present evidence and a model if you want to pursue this. Nope. That’s a tautology. Either a particle is stable or it’s not. No insight into physics here. Nope. ! Moderator Note I’m not going to continue; there’s no rigor here. Provide it as required by the rules. Probably best to trim the list of claims to simplify the discussion. Perhaps the bit about nuclei being bound owing to relativistic electrons in them.

I don’t see how that’s a relevant example

You used collapse in reference to a classical wave: (it was clearly identifies as a classical example By MigL) It’s a classical example. Not a wave function.

Motor, or car? The latter is discussed in the link, and as I already summarized. I suspect there’s more friction in a gas engine than in an electric motor, as well. Pistons move, in addition to the axle that both have.

The answer is still no. The 2009 discovery is not what divB=0 excludes, so the realization of the Dirac monopole does not require any change to the laws of physics, seeing as it was predicted by the existing laws of physics. Is this sufficient, or do you need it written out yet again?

This is fiction I think this is something we can all agree on, as gravity and the normal force are two very different things. Again, this is fiction. This does not become true just because you say it. Earlier you mentioned an experiment. Have you done an actual experiment? Or are you just making this up?

You’ve been told a number of times to distinguish between the two different phenomena dubbed monopoles, but this does not follow; you have presented no physics argument leading from the premise to the assertion. This is a science discussion site. We request science discussion.

By experiment, you mean you’ve done this? Which is it? 80 N or 570 N? It won’t read both. Sure it does. You can’t do this without also being supported at some other point, like one foot on the scale and one on the floor. No, this makes no sense.

No, it’s not really like that at all. You might not like the book (my reaction to it was “meh”) but it has literary value and there are themes to discuss in the context of an English class. So your comparison to eating shit is, well, shit.

I think this is irrelevant, since I’m talking about wave functions, not vectors. I don’t know what you mean by space function.

I think it’s used because the inference is that you only have one observer, and that observer is comparing the two clocks. That observer can’t be in both frames, so the notion that clocks tick at 1 second per second in its own frame is true but moot.

I don’t know what you mean by that.