swansont

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.

No. You can’t use AI to create the content you use in your discussion.

Moderator NoteThis would violate our rules. From rule 2.13: AI-generated content must be clearly marked. Failing to do so will be considered to be plagiarism and posting in bad faith. In other words, you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made. Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions.

You said Hamas has committed war crimes, and I agree. So what does that have to do with Israel indiscriminately killing the inhabitants of Gaza, i.e. genocide?

Hamas runs Gaza, in much the same way that Al Capone ran Chicago. It’s not like the people have much of a choice in the matter. Equating Hamas with the people living there is the opposite of nuance.