swansont

More complicated does not mean the laws don’t apply. You have pressure gradients and viscosity, but you still must have a force directed toward the center. And it follows a formula, that your model does not appear to follow. I also asked: How do you account for the mass-energy of this fluid, in light of the known masses of neutrons and protons and the mass of deuterium, and its binding energy? What’s the fluid made of? What happens to it when you separate the particles? Where does it come from when deuterium forms? Without addressing these, anything built on the flawed model will also be flawed.

What’s so special about being inside a fluid that negates Newton’s laws of motion? Your own post says that this isn’t true. You said (was it plagiarized?) “In fluid mechanics, centripetal force refers to the force required to keep a fluid particle moving in a circular path” That, too, would be wrong. Whatever is providing the centripetal force is an actual force, and is present when analyzed in an inertial frame of reference. Centrifugal force is a fictitious force that shows up in a rotating frame of reference and allows you to apply Newton’s laws of motion.

Moderator NoteYou were already warned that using AI-generated content violates the rules. Thread locked. Don’t bring the topic up again.

(you should cite your sources) This is fine but I said centripetal force, and we’re not in a rotating frame of reference. Centripetal force is the force necessary to keep objects moving in circular motion; in this case it would be the nuclear force between your spheres. Objects moving in a circle are accelerating. If there’s no force (toward the center), objects will move in a straight line, per Newton’s first law. Giving us more flawed explanations does not address the flaws you’ve already presented. It’s just a distraction. Either answer all the questions, or this gets locked.

You can’t have circular motion without one. This is first-semester physics. Without fixing the problems of what you’ve already presented, or answering question that have been asked, what’s the point?

Nobody has denied this connection. You claimed that Ozempic and Mounjaro affected these, and you have given no evidence of that.

How do you arrive at these numbers? An object moving in a circular path requires a centripetal force of mv^2/r. How can they have this motion if the force drops to zero? N-m is joules, not watts, but why would the force be constant? Centripetal force varies with r How do you account for the mass-energy of this fluid, in light of the known masses of neutrons and protons and the mass of deuterium, and its binding energy? What’s the fluid made of? What happens to it when you separate the particles? Where does it come from when deuterium forms?

You need to substantiate this, too. GLP-1 drugs slow digestion and make you feel full despite eating less. I never noticed any effect on my enjoyment of food. Just being satisfied with smaller portions. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/13901-glp-1-agonists

Moderator NoteFacts? You’ve backed nothing up with credible sources. It’s assertion. And you originally posted this in the Lounge, but it’s not some personal anecdote. You need to do better.

AI-generated content violates the rules. Are these some new physics results, or the same as mainstream physics, but arrived at via a different path? If the former, what’s different and how can it be tested?

So it’s “intelligent” if we use a peculiar definition of intelligence, it doesn’t check for veracity, and can’t assess it, but you can convince it it’s wrong (even if it’s right) and will give you a new answer only if that happens, and it can’t create anything new. The bit about being ready to believe actually says a lot - this is a religion, and there are few people as zealous as new converts. In reality it gives you a statistically average answer of what other people have said. And it does this based on stolen data (the ethical issues don’t really come up here, nor do the profitability and power use problems, but they also exist)

Moderator Note No, let’s not, if this is to be discussed in Computer Science, as per the rules. This thread, and any thread outside of speculations, is for what actual people say I remember a company that called itself “Seattle’s Best Coffee” which was a marketing ploy, not a statement of fact

Why is this a problem you have to solve in a story?

From what I read it’s mixed with some other agent.

Is it all that hygroscopic? Salt is, but it doesn’t get soggy and lumpy unless it’s pretty humid.

Citation? You state this as if it were fact.

They aren’t. Chemistry is an important actor here. The core is iron and nickel, but heavier elements are found in the mantle and crust. The heavy elements tend not to be in pure form, and the forms they take are less dense. Dense material will sink, because there’s force pulling them there (using Newtonian description), and can push less dense materials out of the way.

TheVat suggested it in another thread

You’re trying to divide us

That’s not how your very first post in the thread reads. We can all read it. You talked about GR being flawed because of infinitesimals, followed by a very incorrect summary of the uncertainty principle. You followed that up with “Calculus is in direct contradiction with Uncertainty Principle” Direct contradiction. Not via GR. Pretty much every new post had an error that needed to be corrected. Like I said, we can all read it. There will not be any rewriting of history. Anyway, GR does not violate what YOU presented as being the HUP, and I think that was answered. “Calculus assumes and necessarily requires the logical leap-of-faith that if you break a curve into infinitesimally small parts, then each part is a straight line. An infinitesimal change in y with respect to an infinitesimal change in x. Calculus claims it knows the value of both x and y, at infinitesimality.” Quantum uncertainty principle claims that at infinitesimality, observables are in superposition. You cannot know fully and simultaneously both the values of y and x.” (note that you are the one who presented x and y as being the variables associated with a straight line, rather than y being momentum, as you later argued)

When you first mentioned this you said things that were flat-out wrong, and it’s hard to answer a question based on such misconceptions unless those misconceptions are first cleared up.

The post you replied to was on a very specific topic. If you wanted to make your point about escape velocity, which doesn’t apply to vehicles exerting thrust (only for ballistic travel) you should have chosen a different post to quote. And really, don’t try and guess peoples’ motivations. It’s inappropriate (personal attack, so a bit insulting), and says more about you and your biases.

Moderator NoteNo, because those discussion must take place in speculations.

You need to reread the post you quoted. It’s about a plane getting into space. Yes there are issues that would be worse with a thicker atmosphere. But it still has nothing to do with escape velocity. I don’t know why you think it does.

Not so false when they are rarely held accountable for their actions