swansont

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.

I don’t see where you gave units for Elasticity, Plasticity and Rigidity. Can you just answer the question? We want you to provide us with enough information to test it. Right now you’re telling us there’s something really cool inside a box. Show us what’s inside the box.

Same thing for life. But that has no direct connection with dimensions. That does not follow. We don’t consider a dead person to have consciousness, and it has the same building blocks as a live person. The scientific issue is what is special about the configurations that do have consciousness.

The units have to work, too. What are the units of these variables?

My understanding is that it’s where the expansion velocity is equal to the escape velocity of the collection of mass. So it’s not what Hubble and others describe as expansion. Get yourself a new name.

I only used insects as an example because you had mentioned a spider and insects. Bringing up our closest relatives is not exactly representative of animals in general, especially in the context of my earlier comment about voluntary actions/premeditation.

The GOP has been pushing this idea for some time, with the idea that the US is a Christian nation. It’s not, and most of the people in this administration only give lip service to the religion they claim to follow. It’s pretty clear that they are not familiar with the teachings of it, echoing their ignorance of the Constitution. They use it as a facade to seize and exert power. (see e.g. the new Pope’s feedback to JD Vance’s claims about Catholicism)

Nobody has attacked your character or integrity, and if you think being questioned is insulting then you probably don’t have the temperament for doing science. Ideas get scrutinized to see if they match with observation. That this is your life’s work is irrelevant. You don’t get points for effort. You should have gotten feedback sooner to ensure you weren’t going down the wrong path. And yes, that’s what this section of the forum is all about: informal peer review of non-mainstream science ideas. Markus has given you a problem to solve with your model. I had been thinking of a slightly different example, that of the deflection of the path of light. Newtonian physics gives a different prediction than general relativity; quantifying the prediction is how people were able to determine which model was correct. It’s not enough to say that the sun will deflect the path. It needs to be quantified, which is why we need to see the math.

It doesn’t choose to not be hungry. And the issue of sentience alone doesn’t address my point. I laid out a broader set of conditions. The fact that the gharial only eats fish when it’s hungry satisfies those conditions.

Nobody is claiming that you don’t compare your model with observation. Then the data are not defined by the models. The data doesn’t know what model you’re later going to use. “F=GMm/r^2 allows you to actually do tests and launch probes to other planets. “Things are attracted to each other” doesn’t have sufficient power to do that. “If I asked you to prove me wrong about the solid universe you would use current models as a basis for proving me wrong” We would compare your predictions with experimental results. i.e. the data. But since the data agree with the current models,that would be equivalent. Also, you need to show ypu’re right - you own the burden of proof here. But you keep stalling. Where’s the beef?

Decisions would have to include the ability to decide not to do things, as I had suggested. And self-awareness. I don’t think the fact that we’re animals is relevant. Can an insect choose to become vegan? Does an insect kill out of passion? Does it kill because it doesn’t like the victim’s politics or religion?

Speaking of problems, I just saw a short documentary on the Ronan Point collapse and the associated issues with the design and corner-cutting during construction.

But humans are sentient, and do most of these things voluntarily

What does this have to do with the topic? edit: I assume your downvote means you aren’t going to explain yourself