swansont

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?

Terminology has meaning when discussing physics (and any topic, really). If you call something energy density, do a calculation of energy density, and talk of an excitation then you must mean energy density. A literal quantity, which you need to identify a threshold condition. Saying it’s a symbolic tool sounds like meaningless twaddle, and trying to tap-dance around making contradictory claims. What are the four dimensions? What’s curving if there’s no spacetime. What happens to the chortons after spacetime emerges?

We detect such particles, and I'd like a source that says it’s the solar wind vs our own atmosphere that shields us, but also an explanation of how this supposedly answers the questions you were asked.

The problem is assuming who gave you downvotes. Your premise is incorrect.

I don’t see you ever addressed my question about what happens to the chortons after spacetime emerges. But since chortons are formed by having a certain energy density, energy has already appeared.

So this conjecture doesn’t actually predict the proton mass, it’s fitting parameters to data. Why is the proton - which is not a fundamental particle - the basis for this? How can you account for the neutron’s different properties if the theory predicts it’s the same as the proton? How do you account for all the other baryons, which have masses higher than the proton? Why would leptons be predicted by the same framework? Why don’t we have particles for each shell? What accounts for all of the missing ones? BTW, the proton/electron mass ratio is not exactly 1836, so your error is not zero.

But you haven’t done this, right.

How does one test to confirm these properties? Being an elastic medium must have physical ramifications. So pi arises because you put it in the equation? Aren’t you just kicking the can down the road, and all this is moot? Is there a derivation of this, or is it just a guess? I don’t see anything here that allows one to do anything meaningful in figuring out details. Just the same vague buzzwords. Such as?

But what vacuum properties? This is just a house of cards built on vague notions, and we need the vague notion to be solidified before anything gets built on top of it. You’re getting ahead of yourself

That’s not how it works. People bring cases, using lawyers. Judges render decisions. Sometimes the loser of the case will appeal to a higher court, but judges don’t do that. And, as iNow implies, even if the Supreme Court found him in contempt (not likely with the justices favoring him), the US Marshals aren’t going to do anything. But that’s moot, since the court has already decided that the president isn’t subject to legal action, because the proper procedure is impeachment.

Then I don’t know what your point is. Your point about “the vacuum” isn’t at all clear in explaining what you think is going on. I don’t see any clear explanation of what these “twist loops” are supposed to be, and you don’t have any examples of anything that “results in pi” … yet you’re convinced that this happens. How can you be convinced that it happens but have no examples of the phenomenon? That fits the description of a hallucination.