studiot

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.

The original question asks for an explanation of the difference between an image and a likeness which is a technical question. This threas seems to me to have now taken a definitely proselytising turn. Consider your left hand and your right hand. The are alike or they have a likeness. but they are not the same. They are only an image in a mirror.

I'm still waiting for the explanations of both the earth's magnetism and superconductivity. All you have told me so far is that they are different, which I agree with.

USPS ???? For the past week or so the posties around here have been delivering dressed as santa. It is some management iniative to promote the Royal Mail. And furthermore Sunday last a whole posse of bikers in santa costumes rode up to the local hospital ro deliver their annual gift to the children's wing. 😄

Well How am I supposed to know that your last line is different from the one above it. Or are you telling me that there is no connection between refraction, reflections and interference ? what about all the other line with 'and' in ? This is very poor scientific writing, in my opinion.

Shame on you you've shattered my illusions if you are trying to tell me that the tooth fairy and santa claus do not exist. If the latter who has been delivering my mail this past week ?

I am the centre of the universe and have been since I was a baby - a fact well known to my parents. 😄

Yes good idea. In what way is the Earth's magnetic field related to superconductivity ?

lol Google was unable to translate. Since you can obviously do this please do so.

Thank you for that extended reply. Was that from an AI ? I ask because LLms do not read the message of questions put to them but are constrained to display an answer, just as their forerunners, the digital display in instruments and calculators, was so constrained. Unfortunalely you repsly does not even begin to offer the explanation I asked for. Note I did not ask for proof of anything I asked for an explanation .

Did you read the rules at SF about posting discussion material lately ?

Where was it posted ?

I'm sorry, was it on the previous page or did I miss it. ? Where is the maths in all this ? Lot's of pretty pictures and idol worship, but where's the beef ?

When your original post is fit for other members to draw from perhaps you would like to explain what underlies your link between gravitation and inertia. The two are currently regarded as different independant phenomena and the fact that, as far as we have been able to determine, they offer the same values is just a fortuituous accident of the unverse.

I would have thougth any parent or grandparent would have first hand experience. Facilities for games, school dinners, practical subjects like woodwork, science are regularly being sold off by schools around the UK and have been for some decades. Some universities now use circuit simulation only instead of hands on electronics, mechanics etc. Or else, like Exeter they have simply closed the Chemistry department.

With the accountants and centralists now firmly in charge of education would members like to comment on the trend to reduce or even remove all practicals from the curriculum at all levels from primary to university. How is this impacted by the current expanding crop of 'demonstartion videos on Ytube and the like ?