swansont

Moderator NoteRules require that the material for discussion be posted here. Not as attachments.

Why does this matter, even if it were accurate? The issue is how fast we are moving through the aether (it had been previously determined that we are not at rest with respect to it) and any interaction with glass is not the issue. The aether was proposed as the medium through which light travels. We care about the composition and properties of the aether. Two rays of light traveling in opposite directions can’t be traveling at the same speed with respect to that medium.

Which would be spherical. It’s an oblate spheroid; the rotation means there is an equatorial bulge. Gravity, being spherically symmetric, dictates the shape, as long as the object is massive enough so that gravity can overpower any structural forces (hydrostatic equilibrium). That’s one of the criteria for calling something a planet. Not really feasible. Our atmosphere is breathable for of order 10 km, on top of a radius of ~6400 km. It’s a thin layer. Extending it - and not even by very far - would mean a thicker atmosphere at ground level.

More from the same author https://www.planetearthandbeyond.co/p/starship-dead-end “SpaceX still has a long way to go before Starship becomes a viable launch vehicle. It still has to successfully land the upper stage, reuse an upper stage, reach orbit, deliver a payload to orbit, reach a useable payload capacity, conduct a cryogenic fuel transfer between two starships in space (which has never been done before), perform a successful long-duration flight test, conduct a successful uncrewed lunar landing and conduct a crewed lunar landing. All of which, for context, was meant to be achieved by January 2025!”

There are multiple definitions of species. Groups that normally don’t interbreed (for a variety of reasons) can be considered two different species. But when they do, viable (and fertile) offspring can result.

Thank you

See how easy it is to follow the rules? Try doing that from now on.

The cited paper called this a minor contribution. Do you have a citation that suggests otherwise?

Speculation requires more than rough drawing and made-up numbers.

Can you clarify what the Hell’s Creek formation is?

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