studiot

I was not talking about orbital dynamics or paths. Going back to Poinsot's Theorem mechanics has to account for both statics and dynamics, both of which divisions embraced aspects of both translational and rotational mechanics. When are you going to address all the the points in my last post - they come as a package deal parts of which cannot be ignored ? Two of these points are particularly relevent since they refer to the interplay between rotational and translational dynamics.

It is not often that joigus graces his replies with this much detail of really well reasoned explanation and advice. +1 It is sound advicest I suggest you take it.

A further note Note that the page counter in a pdf viewer counts some blank pages so you must use the actual page numbers on the pages themselves. Page 84 is the crucial one to come away understanding ( to proceed to quantum theory) since it is about the potential energy of a body about to fall under gravity.

Why is it so important to you to be shown to be right in every respect ? In my turn I have agreed with some of your statements and listed good scientific reasons why I disagree with some of them. This one you simply misinterpreted since I was talking about content not speed This one is your claim not mine so it is for you to prove, mathematically, that your premises lead to the conculsion you claim. But note that since the sphere is a convex hull (has positive curvature everywhere) the will always be spaces left between touching spheres of any size, different or the same. Firther I already presented a link to the conventional maths for the simplest case and explained why you can't fill up the gaps leftover. Ddi you not read it ? Just as an alternative thought; Why do your units have to be spheres ? I also showed many solids that will fill 3D completely. Certainly QM geometry has very few spheres in it.

Don't worry too much about the maths - it's concepts they want to teach at your stage. Here is an american physics text for 7th grade. https://chilot.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/83fa6-grade-7-physics-textbook.pdf See if you have covered forces and measurement in sections 1 -3 then Have a look at section 4 Energy, Work and Power pages 75 - 90. Then you will be able to make some sense of explanations. You will only need very simple maths at this stage.

Yes, if you have a garden you could pour them onto the compost heap, say one a week. but dont out them directly into the soil at this time of year. December would be OK for that. Alternatively just pour them down an outside drain or gully and rinse them out.

This is where some knowledge of Chemistry or Mineralogy is helpful. The term used is close packing and the best that can be achieved with equal spheres is 74% fill. The shape of the unoccupied spaces preculudes packing with successively smaller spheres. Geosciences LibreTexts13.3.2: Packing in Three Dimensions

Glad you like it Having seen so many ideas fail because they start with there is only one or this is absolute or somesuch, I have this 'theory' aboute statements of absolutes, which runs:- There are no other absolutes. Two tools huh ? What about Trial and error ? So few tools yes, but only and absolutely 2 no. Agreed Agreed these were both important questions. However I am comfortable with my understanding of QM in general and duality in particular. I find neither suprising. Personally I consider that we are spending too much time and effort on external research into places we will probably never reach or influence. I think the actual physicists here would seriously disagree with this observation. Certainly the Physics I learned in the mid 20th century is way different from the Physics I am seeing today. I agree that unification of theories is today's ,most sought after goal. However not being goal oriented, I am perfectly comforable with 10 theories as 1. Further your list of quantisable effects is certainly far to short so there is no need to incorporate non quantum effects, or currently unimportant ones when there are plenty of very important ones to choose from, Whenever you feel ready. But I would expect both the visualisation and mathematics (as per your basic physics) to match the observed field.

I find the auto update jumping around, adding and subtracting items willy nilly. Further if I see a new post actually whilst in a thread and go back to all activity in can be several minutes before it is added to all activity - the record is over 15mins.

Thanks for the detail, I will consider it carefully before responding. Just a quick response to your summary of classical machanics. You are only considering linear (translational) inertia. What about rotational inertia and the inertia tensor ? What about a skater spinning on the ice and drawing in her arms ? What about Gyroscopic action ? You would be ill advised to calculate rocket mechanics this way.

Thanks for the info, I had honestly thought that we were having (and still are) a reasonable discussion and that there was some misunderstanding so you had cracked a joke re Beer. So yes come back when you have sorted your other business. Please also look at my point about the fuel. I don't know who posted the negative rep, I haven't done that since I was a rookie here in 20012/13. So I have post a positive cancellation. See yah.

+1 for an excellent attitude.

Also welcome. You are in luck we had a recent similar thread I posted a couple of resources there and there are also several other responses to choose from. joigus has asked for you maths level, I ask for you Physics and/or Chemistry or whatever you are studying. QM is basically about energy so it is a good idea to have a handle on this side of things Note you are allowed 5 posts in your first 24 hours, so make them count. After that you can post at will. And there is plenty of help availbale here so read / study widely and ask about what you are unsure of.

Space filling is not a property of infinity. Take, for instance the integers 1, 2 We know ther are numbers between 1 and 2 because we can form the expression (1+2) / 2 out of the integers. But it is also clear that those numbers are not integers. But Faraday's Law simply states what happens. It does not say why it happens. Neither Faraday nor Maxwell had any inkling of Quantum Theory, so it is not suprising that they did not mention it. However if you look in the second article (Dyson) about Maxwell that I linked to you will find a discussion of the quantum implications of their theories. Here's why. https://scienceforums.net/topic/136139-photon-collapse-as-the-origin-of-gravitons-gravigenesis-theory/#comment-1292263

even this is contradicted in your article Here is just one such place As a matter of interest your original concept is very similar to Maxwell's vortex theory (published in 1860 and 1861), except he used rotational momentum and you have used linear momentum (isn't momentum another physical law you wished to avoid?) This was also called Maxwell's Mechanical Aether theory. The interesting thing is that the shapes in your diagram are not space filling. (You did say that your required space to be completely filled with your protoparticles with nothing left over) Round objects do not fit together to fill space, and 2D can be misleading. Here are some 3D shapes that fill space. Space-Filling Polyhedron -- from...Space-Filling Polyhedron -- from Wolfram MathWorldA space-filling polyhedron is a polyhedron which can be used to generate a tessellation of space. Although even Aristotle himself proclaimed in his work On the Heavens that the tetrahedron fills sp... Maxwell used hexagons to achieve the filling Here are some links to maxwells theory. You can see in the original paper (the first link) how similar it is to yours https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/MAT22C/MaxwellOnPhysicalLinesOfForce.pdf https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/dyson.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell%27s_equations

I do not have access to the article itself, but this line in the abstract stood out for me. The question What are these major variations and what are the sample sizes they represent ? seems highly significant to me. Some more information is available here https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/aging-related-inflammation-not-universal-across-human-populations The BBC also ran the article with comments, a couple of days ago but I cna't find it now. +1 for raising it and to stringjunky for his additional information.

Well I looked at your paper and I can honestly say that I don't recommend you or anyone else spending any more time on it. There are so many self contradictions that it is in the category of 'Not even wrong'.

If you have genuinely discovered something new what a shame you are clearly determined not to emulate your countryman who introduced the periodic table we still use today. Scientists have been trying for some time to fit conductivity (super or otherwise) to the layout of the table. for instance using the Mott transition temperature and energy. One day it will happen. Sorry you don't want to discuss this. However it is clear you don't wish to discuss details, despite claiming (twice) that your hypothesis explains this phenomenon.

How does is this compatible with this ? Wikipedia SpaceX Starship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship Low Earth Orbit is defined as above 100km. Here the air is at around about minus 100oC The pressure depends upon the component here is the relevant equation and physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_height

This is a better expalantion of Beer's Law than Wikipedia Chemistry LibreTextsThe Beer-Lambert LawThe Beer-Lambert law relates the attenuation of light to the properties of the material through which the light is traveling. This page takes a brief look at the Beer-Lambert Law and explains the u... Are you aware that 'disperse system' is also a specialist chemical term ? It embraces mixtures where one material is distributed throughout another so that the result acts as a single entity. As such it covers sols, aerosols, foams, colloids and so on Another important Law is the Phase Rule, which can describe the range of temperature and pressure that your 2 component system can remain stable. I am taking your proposal seriously and trying to discuss the details.

Thanks for the lightening quick response, but do you know what the Beer Law refers to - it is not dispersion it is transmission. You made a prediction, where did it come from ?

The point is that it is your idea and your idea is really easy to feasibilty test. In a suitable chamber, you need to introduce a disperse system at a range of concentrations (obviously including your resultant conc from the 50kT) and measure the Beer law coefficient. Have you any evidence of this having been done ?

I notice that this ahs nothing to do with either the original post or my reply. It is preaching pure and simple.

If you really have a definite predictive physical explanation of either the Earth's magnetic field or Superconductivity, as you have claimed then we mare all interested because both of these have yet to be fully descibed and explained by current theory.