swansont

Is it a waste of time to ask you if this is your diagram, and, if not, to ask you to tell us where it came from? (AS IS REQUIRED BY THE RULES)

Mainly because GR passes all of the tests we can run on it, and the alternative you’re offering does not come with much of anything beyond hand-waving. There’s no actual model, and without that one can’t say whether existing evidence supports it or not.

So it has not been suggested that this was the cause of their extinction. You’ve answered your question.

I really hope that this is a matter of a language/communication problem and not bigotry. Science’s function doesn’t include endorsing the latter

What would it mean to have a quantum password? Quantum computer operation is fundamentally different from a standard PC. They are not going to “take over” doing spreadsheets, writing documents and playing games.

Where was this suggested?

Yes, it’s a matter of physics. A planet has a fairly substantial moment of inertia. changing the rotation rate by any appreciable amount isn’t going to happen.

Why is that an issue of something being wrong with your immune system? Nobody is immortal. Thus, we all die, and all die of…something. We don’t die from some things as young as we used to, like heart disease. Or of childhood maladies, in many parts of the world. If we don’t die of those things, we must die of something else. It’s a zero-sum game. If you don’t die when you’re young, the chances of getting a disease of the aged goes up, simply because you’ve had the good fortune if getting old.

I’m older than you, and I have a PhD in physics, so don’t come at me with that attitude. I can understand a lot of things when they are adequately explained. I’ve known a lot of smart scientists who weren’t good teachers; they expected others to just “get it” and it doesn’t work that way. Thinking that you are the teacher, and can't be questioned or held to a standard, is part of the problem.

Moderator Note The thread you link to was closed for lack of any science. This looks to be more of the same. Referring to Kabbalah and ChatGPT screams that this is mysticism/mumbo-jumbo. We have a rule against using AI (we want to discuss with a person who understands what they’re posting, not something made up by a LLM) and speculations has rules about rigor.

And I’m saying this is not particularly helpful

Moderator Note When I asked you to explain your drawings, I was hoping for labeling, not a contradictory color-code legend. (hydrogen is yellow, but also red? Be consistent) Using copyrighted images in them doesn’t clear anything up, and is also a rules violation (which requires removal) Not providing a link to where you got the images that aren’t yours is another. Your drawings may be clear to you, but you are falling woefully short of explaining them to others. That might be one reason that nobody “takes it serious”

Just had another - I was double-checking my memory of big bang nucleosynthesis, and asked the number ratio of helium and hydrogen, and it gave me 3:1, which is the mass ratio. (making the number ratio 12:1)

Reference? Or are you just making this up?

So you posted them without attribution, or noting at the outset that it isn’t your work. You need to 1) provide a link to the source, 2) do a lot more to explain what your own drawings represent, and 3) not post DNA stuff here, since you have a thread for that

Many times. It’s why we don’t let people use it as support for an argument. Not long ago there was a story about putting nonsense phrases into Google and getting the AI summary of the meaning and possible etymology, and it will make one up. I tried “you can’t do handstands on a cupcake” and while the summary gave a somewhat plausible interpretation, told me “it’s often used in a lighthearted way” but yet when I Googled the exact phrase I got ‘No results found for “you can't do handstands on a cupcake”’ so it’s a nonexistent phrase and yet it’s often used There was also a story about a student doing some physics and the summary of the text didn’t understand using 1/2 in exponents, so it made up some (wrong) garbage about the math, and how there is no such thing as an inverse-square law

Despite your fixation on things happening in one second, for no discernible reason, you have not shown this to be the case in reality. And even if it is, so what? that does not make the interactions the same.

Pulling the system apart, or assembling it, is not the same situation as the steady state you were describing earlier. Energy is required or released if you change the configuration, but not to maintain it.

No. Work add or subtracts energy from a system. Once the bond is formed, the energy of the system is constant - no work is being done.

YOU said it was “hexal” (I also see that your coloring is obscuring some double bonds, so my comment on that is moot)

Bound systems like galaxies and nuclei release energy when forming. Thus, no energy is required to hold them together. Energy is required to break them apart. A nucleon infalling into a galaxy will acquire a speed of less than 1000 km/s as it gets to any place outside the core. So v/c is 1e3/3e5, making (v/c)^2 ~ 10^-5 For a nucleon, that’s a KE of around 5 keV. If there are 100 protons per neutron, and even if they were all in deuterium, that still only 500 keV vs 2.2 MeV

Details: https://www.planetearthandbeyond.co/p/starship-was-doomed-from-the-beginning

I don’t know what “energy needed to create a force” means. Energy and force are not the same thing. The characterization makes no physics sense. When things move under the influence of Newtonian gravity, the total energy stays the same - any reduction in potential energy increases the kinetic energy by the same amount. You can calculate the nuclear and gravitational binding energies of nucleons. They are not anywhere close to being equal. But the energies are not the same. You are discussing a fictional universe, not the universe we live in.

I have no interest in sorting through what I’m guessing is nonsense. If you think it’s valid, it’s your job to find the examples But let’s be clear: it can’t be revisionist; that’s not a prediction. It can’t be vague - if it’s not precise, it’s no good. You’re just picking the interpretation that works after the fact, and ignoring the ones that don’t

I have no idea. Do you think this rebuts my point? I don’t see how. Again, I don’t see how this is contrary to my point. Insisting that the Bible is inerrant would seem to confirm that the conflict is caused by “religious people insisting that the religious text makes pronouncements about the physical world”