swansont

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”

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.