swansont

! Moderator Note One topic per thread, please, and the speculations section requires a way to test ideas - you need to make specific predictions, and that means a mathematical model No, it does not.

! Moderator Note Numerology is not science. We require a model with testable predictions, and this isn’t even close

eninn preaching. They did it again, and they are banned, as promised.

OTOH if that fraction of calories utilized is roughly constant, then eating more/fewer calories means you are absorbing more/fewer calories.

! Moderator Note The rules require that material for discussion be posted from rule 2.7 members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. … Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted

By including some kind of deterministic process, i.e. a filter. What non-random result are you referring to?

That’s not a foundation of science; there are plenty of non-random, deterministic interactions. The reading you shared did not say that mutations are not random. It said certain outcomes have a bias, i.e. outcomes do not all have the same probability. The word would be credibility, which is gained or lost by whether one is posting information and making arguments that are credible.

"Changes our understanding of evolution" is not the same as a fundamental new principle. I was under the impression that the susceptibility to mutation not being uniform was known earlier than 2022. Also, the use of "random" is problematic here; things can be random even if the outcomes don't have equal probabilities. Fair dice are random, but you roll 7 more often than other numbers. A normal distribution is not a flat line.

I’m not sure why “unexpected findings” would be the evidence I’m asking for. We have unexpected findings all the time in physics without requiring a paradigm shift. What it does is fill in some blanks or force some small adjustments to existing models.

“Gene-based disease is more complicated than we thought” is not evidence of a flaw in the established biology. It’s not like anyone found that such diseases aren’t genetic. It looks to me like they found that an assumption - that these diseases were based on some simple genetic code - was in error. In that way, the model was modified. That you did not answer the question, and just repeated your previous dribble, suggests you have nothing to offer in the way of evidence. (“this will help cure disease” might just be some boiler-plate PR that‘s included; I saw this quite often in atomic physics, where some discovery or investigation was touted as improving atomic clocks, which rarely happened because the technique was too difficult to implement, or the complexity/benefit ratio was way off. One shouldn’t pay too much attention to the message sent to the masses) edit: wasn’t the COVID vaccine enabled by genetic sequencing?

What did the genome sequences reveal that discredited established biology? If there are none, why would there be any new principles?

! Moderator Note OK, we’re done. Feel free to ask questions to clear up your misconceptions about relativity, but your caricature of it is not what the theory says. Don’t re-introduce your…musings…on the subject

! Moderator Note Your opinion is not what is important. What we want is a model and to see how the evidence supports it.

No, that’s not correct. The speed of light is the product of these two, and it’s not 8 m/s. 400 THz is 750 nm ”time is a point” suggests that it has a single value, which is not the case, but time dilation is an effect on an oscillation frequency. Time is the integral of that frequency (i.e. you count the ticks of a clock to give you the elapsed time) Any claim you make must be somehow testable. How does one test your conjecture?

If there’s no place to land, how do you deploy your ~12.5m diameter balloon? (roughly the same size as a Bell 407, which can lift more weight and is maneuverable)

! Moderator Note This isn’t a conspiracy discussion site; any speculations brought up must comply with our rules.

Yes. The requirements are specific to the journal. As I recall, the process generally took several months for peer review, revisions and publication. Submission dates might be included in the article so you can check for yourself e.g. a recent one from Phys. Rev. Lett. Published in April “Received 7 September 2023 Revised 11 January 2024 Accepted 26 January 2024”

In what situations?

Clouded over - nothing but a diffuse bright blob, at best, and it got kinda dark for a while.

Another cargo vessel lost power near a bridge but was being escorted by tugs. https://abc7chicago.com/verrazzano-narrows-bridge-new-york-apl-qingdao-cargo-ship-loses-power/14634032/# “The U.S. Coast Guard confirmed the container ship "had experienced a loss of propulsion" Friday night as it traversed a waterway in New York Harbor.” I’m guessing this happens relatively often but we just weren’t aware because near-misses usually don’t make the news

Can you provide evidence of quantum transitions at such low energies? Neutrinos do not interact electromagnetically. You’re building speculation on top of more speculation, and give the appearance of just making it up as you go. ! Moderator Note The charade has gone on long enough. This doesn’t fulfill the requirements of speculations, despite ample opportunity to comply. Don’t bring this topic up again

No, I want to know how photons are generated in a solid given your model. Photons don’t just sit there - they move at c - so they are either absorbed, or they leave the material. We can know the rate at which they leave, since it’s dictated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. But once the photons are absorbed inside the material, which will happen quickly, how do you get new ones? (Once we can calculate the heat capacity, we can find out how many photons there must be)

You say there are all these photons but can’t tell us how they are generated. I know how they are generated in mainstream physics, but your model denies that mechanism. And once you figure out the heat capacity issue, there will be more deficiencies to point out.

That’s not a mechanism for generating photons. No. The Kelvin is a fundamental unit. It does not equate to joules. Your link does not say what you claim here; you have omitted a factor (in the denominator) of the Boltzmann constant, which has units.

Why? What is the mechanism in your model that gives you these photons? K-1.kg-1.s * K^3 does not give units of heat or heat flux. The temperature factors don’t even cancel