swansont

Three atoms do not comprise a hexagon (your nitrogen structure) Can you form a bond with a vertex? With three nitrogens, plus other atoms?

I don’t see how that disagrees with me. The conflict arises from religious people insisting that the religious text makes pronouncements about the physical world (instead of e.g. being allegories)

Science is formally oblivious to religion, insofar as religion deals with spiritual/supernatural things and science deals with the material/physical world. They are only at odds where religious folk try to insist that their religious texts makes pronouncements about the physical world. Not so much. You can only say this if scripture made specific predictions that did not have more than one interpretation, and scripture tends to be vague. To say science verifies it is retconning. If there was no science from which to crib answers, you don’t get those answers. (e.g. age of the earth in Christianity) I predict these will be the vague passages that do not lend themselves to one definitive answer. Revisionism, though. They ceded that ground when the sheer weight of evidence forced it. Gods of the gaps. God is an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance (as Tyson puts it)

All quantum particles have characteristics of both. You can’t ignore one aspect at your convenience. One way to think of the way the particle nature might manifest itself is that the quark will spend some fraction of its time in close proximity to the other. Something like (10^-15/10^-35)^3 of the time (as a very non-refined first-order analysis) What you can’t do is assume that they're just stuck together at the planck length

Moderator NoteChatGPT is not a technical resource and cannot be trusted. So its use is not permitted here (see rule 2.13)

Something I recall reading about tolerating intolerance or not is that tolerance is not a moral standard. Tolerating others is part of the social contract. If you don’t, then you exist outside of the social contract structure and aren’t covered by it.

But what you describe is a meson, which has a size of around 10^-15m, so looking at the planck length is misguided. You can’t ignore the wave nature of the quarks, either. Any notion that these are acting like a tiny binary star system is also misguided This is not observed, though if one were an antiquark it would be a pi meson. Being massless does not mean it is not subject to gravity. Again, this claim isn’t consistent with the wave behavior that will be present

No. For multiple reasons. Quarks interactions are mediated by gluons, which are spin 1. Gravitons, if they exist, would be spin 2. And they just don’t behave the same way - range, quark confinement, the fact that non-quarks feel the gravitational interaction.

What is “high-frequency” about electrons? (also, photons can be low-frequency)

From what I’ve read, SpaceX is using an approach that doesn’t scale up to what’s needed to get beyond LEO, and Musk is long on promises but short on execution (he’s been promising self-driving in his cars is just a year away for the last ~9 years) Trump is gutting NASA, so I don’t think any plans made before this year are going to hold up.

You already have a thread open on this, and even if it were new, you shouldn’t post identical threads

You already have a thread open on this, and even if it were new, you shouldn’t post identical threads

Moderator NoteOur rules require that material for discussion be posted. Is there some reason you can’t just do this?

Nobody claims the SM is a complete success. We know it’s incomplete You could replace “dark matter” in your statement with “neutrino” and you would be citing history. Was the prediction of the neutrino wrong? Pluto was hypothesized because of otherwise unexplained perturbations on orbits. The neutron was inferred from the discovery of masses of various isotopes. Some elements were hypothesized from gaps in the periodic table

Moderator NoteIt needs to be noted that, no, you did not quote it, in the context of online discussion. You may have copied it, but did not use the quote function or place it quotation marks, or italicize it - anything that would indicate (especially as a short, unremarkable sentence) that it was not something coming from you. Then you compounded your error by lashing out.

There are gene therapy approaches for Parkinson’s https://www.apdaparkinson.org/article/gene-therapy-for-parkinsons-disease/ I defer to experts in deciding what the most promising avenues are to pursue

I didn’t call your work crap. I called a particular passage crap, where you implied that accepting scientific ideas was like a religion, and accepting your ideas would be like switching religions. That is crap. Science is based on evidence, unlike religion. That you made that analogy points to you not understanding science very well. And it was not a personal attack. I attacked a claim you made, not you. As for the rest, it seems like you making the case that you don’t have to follow our rules on what can be discussed in speculations. Unfortunately for you, you don’t get to make that decision.

You need more for your “model” to comply with the requirements for speculations

You postulated that the spin angular momentum is ℏ/2. In any event, you aren’t answering the question, and I made our rule clear to you. Others have pointed out some of the reasons for that rule.

This suggests you don’t know. And you’re wrong, because your AI didn’t answer the question. It has to have a value. What is that value? How would you measure it? Except you haven’t done this. Your values for ℏ, G, and c have just been taken from mainstream physics. (I don’t think it’s possible to get these values from first principles. You have to use experiment to determine them)

What is inertial density? And what are the values of these constants?

Moderator NoteRule 2.7 says, in part (emphasis added) members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum.

Moderator NoteRule 2.7 says, in part (emphasis added) members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum.

Evidence?

So you don’t know if it’s correct. And the fact that it uses — instead of = in many equations is confusing, since — is also used for subtraction. edit: You need to define your variables, too. In any event, I’d like you to explain your equation for planck’s constant. I don’t see how it has units of angular momentum.