studiot

Are you a monk as well ? 😄

The red flags have nothing to do with me, so why are you raising the subject in our discussion ? Again none of this has anything to do with either me or the subject I offered to discuss, which was your original question. So you asked a good question and there were some antis. That happenns to most people on most threads. Yet when someone wants to discuss your proper question in mature fashion your response is thanks but no thanks. Even after you have had some reasonable comments from others. So why did you ask the question in the first place ?

So you confirm that you asked an AI to refute my earllier comment .

Oh come on. How did you open this one ?

Well spotted. +1 Is this 'paper' laid out like your opening post or is that your work ? Do you have the knowledge to discuss the foundatioins of mathematics sensibly ? For instance do you know the difference between the constructivist and intuitionist methodology. There are (infinitely) many 'infinities'. Which one are you talking about ?

I didn't say any of this. I said 'something'. And I know you called it luxia. However any 'something' that can offer such an enormous density offers a pretty good resistance to any motion of matter at all R I P Newton's laws. And no you cannot say that any physical quantity means one thing here and something entirely differenly somewhere else. And yes I know that some differeng physical quantities have the same units eg kg-m But they also have different physical names so they dont get mixed up. Humans are still smarter than AI nonsense.

Unfortunately for them, the Moderators have to listen to it in order to assess it. You don't have to like their response, but you have to abide by it on this site, just as you have to abide by a supreme court decision in the United States, whether you like that or not. Thank you for this AI generated nonsense.

I didn't say it was nuclear density. If you expect others to read your many words properly, you need to reciprocate by reading their few words just as properly. What you are saying is that the space between nucleii is filled with something of unimaginably greater density than the nucleii themselves.

I am quite dismayed by your response to my offer. If you have read it at all, you don't seem to have understood it, as your response bears almost no relation to my words. And yet I note in your posting a great and significant ability in the english language, when expressing yourself as set against what seems to be a very limited ability to understand the expression of others. My offer was designed to help overcome this dichotomy.

I won't spoil the punch line But try this online or in pdf https://pdfroom.com/books/the-nine-billion-names-of-god/avd96xR0gKD

I'm not disputing any of this, but your mention of Archimedes reminds me that there are two other outstandings causes of death missing. War Slavery

Would you like to explain this statement demonstrating the difference between a probability wave the a quantum mechanical wave function ?

Here is an open and honest offer to take this question as a serious attempt to improve your performance / knowledge, rather than criticising or arguing with it. If you are serious about this question, and I tell you that educated people take it seriously, I suggest it would be a good idea to place it in its own thread away from all this playground name calling. History is rich in great examples of different ways to discover something. How about it ? Over to you.

This brings to mind a tug boat captain I worked with in the Gulf. He explained to me how he was all steamed up about a new cooker he had back home in Texas that had gone wrong. His thesis was that the company should have beta tested it properly before general release to the shops and that he wasn't going to be an upaid tester for anybody.

Hi Markus, Have you ever read the scifi short story by A C Clarke ? The nine billion names of God ? It is about monks in a monastery and a (their) computer. I think you would find it interesting.

Where does this come from The average nuclear density is a little over 2 x1017 kg/m3

Please don't quote words I never said. I don't yet know whether your result matches or not, but I will work through it.

I could possibly justify swearing at a policeman who sends me down the wrong road, but i would most likely end up arrested. That would not happen here, but I respectfully suggest your stuff would be better received (as I thin it deserves) if you moderated the language a tad.

Let's hope so it could be a good discussion. But he doesn't seem to be putting much effort into it.

Yes. But I think you language is a little florid. "forged" ; "ying" : "halucinations"........... Just like the calculator which can do nothing else but display numbers, so long as its display is working correctly (unlike my microwave which has 'lost' one of the segments off one of the digits in its display so now we all have to interpret the display - no problem for a thinking human armed with that information) so we all agree that an AI or other system is programmed to always provide a response. Some of that response from Google now says 'thinking' as it is actually slower than it used to be before the AI overview. Which lulls people into the belief that it is actually thinking.

Sigh. And the rules here (and everywhere else) say that the onus for demonstating the veracity of a claim rests with the claimant. Yes you have correctly looked up a standard spectoscopic calculation, that has been experimentally verified may times in many places over the last hundred years or so. But You haven't shown your calculations. Just some hand waving coupled with a a further attempt to slag off conventional proceedures.

No problem it is not good to be talking at cross purposes so I will try give a better explanation. Suppose I am a latter day Roengten or Fleming and have just discovered an effect that no one else in the world knows about, just as they did. So nothing as yet will have been published anywhere in any form. I see you have made a new answer whilst I was writing this so I will change tack a little as you have obviously understood at least that part of my point. But I was also saying that the consequence of this effect is not insubstantial, quite the contrary it is very important. I don't think I have mentioned this here yet but I see it as a continuation of human desire and lazyness to have and trust a machine that displays "the answer". My wife used to teach drug calculations before retiring. The trouble she had getting the students to look at the answer on the calculator with a critical eye. Such taking for granted (It's on the calculator therfore it mus be "the answer") has lled to all too many drug errors where 10 time too much (or just as bad) 10 times too little drug was administered. These errors increased dramatically when calculators became common. So now we look and say it's on the computer it muust be "the answer" And don't heed the warnings or take the appropriate check precautions.

OK so let us have your calculation and explanation for the observed width of the first sodium line at 589 nm caused by the emission from the first excited state to the ground state. Conventional QM makes it to be 1.1 x 10-5 nm

Are you sure you are not mixing up a known crank with John Archibald Wheeler ?

Firstly I didn't give you an explanation. I stated that your understanding of conventional QM is incorrect (which it is). I also stated that you own Lucian mechanics is incorrect, not that you dii not understand you own work. I just do not see any point pursuing an incorrect modelwhich is at variance with observation. How much spectroscopy have you studied ?