9 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I asked you something else and you are replying with something else.

Is it translation error or it is a Leg pulling?

It should be a translation error. If you don't mind, you can rephrase your question, and I'll be happy to answer it patiently.

Just now, 蒲江军 said:

It should be an expression error caused by translation

I think you need a better translator.

You have now failed to answer the questions from 3 different members, instead answering different questions from the ones asked.

I see no point proceeding further until and unless this issue is resolved.

It's amazing...
That an AI, capable of accessing a wealth of information and misinformation, can come up with support for any ill conceived idea.
I suspect we'll get more and more of this; crank ideas, supported by an AI, and taken as factual by the person proposing them.

Moderator Note

Translation issues aside, there’s no math here, and we require more rigor than hand-wavy explanations. We need the ability to make specific predictions and compare them with experiment/observation.

The section on light generation is nonsense, and “single atom cannot produce light without external interference” can’t be reconciled with spontaneous emission, which is a well-established phenomenon.

So: give us a mathematical model, or this gets closed.

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Moderator Note

Translation issues aside, there’s no math here, and we require more rigor than hand-wavy explanations. We need the ability to make specific predictions and compare them with experiment/observation.

The section on light generation is nonsense, and “single atom cannot produce light without external interference” can’t be reconciled with spontaneous emission, which is a well-established phenomenon.

So: give us an mathematical model, or this gets closed.

Agree with the general sentiment but, on one point of detail, do we not now treat spontaneous emission as due to interaction of the atom with vacuum fluctuations?

15 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Agree with the general sentiment but, on one point of detail, do we not now treat spontaneous emission as due to interaction of the atom with vacuum fluctuations?

Is that interference? I mean, we’re talking physics here, so one has a reasonable expectation of using proper terminology, especially as interference is discussed elsewhere, and other parts of the discussion speak of collisions with another atom causing emission, which is not required

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

Is that interference? I mean, we’re talking physics here, so one has a reasonable expectation of using proper terminology, especially as interference is discussed elsewhere, and other parts of the discussion speak of collisions with another atom causing emission, which is not required

So interaction with the vacuum rather than interference. OK.

A idea without Mathematics is just idea or worst fantasy.

Add mathematics if you want your idea to truly survive.
Even if your idea manages to survive critiques,it cant be taken seriously without mathematics.

Some major problems of this paper-

Repeated phrases like “particle clusters,” “energy saturation,” “escaping particles” are used vaguely.

No equations, no symbolic expressions, no measurable quantities — common in AI text meant to sound scientific.

Phrases like “The universe has no perfect spherical clusters” and “Heat is not vibration, but fleeing particles” are grand claims with no physical rigor.

This style is common in AI-generated texts trained on mix of science + philosophical writing.

Its all pointing that its AI generated.

If core idea is your and you know what you are saying and you used AI just as assistant then prove it.

Edited July 16Jul 16 by Dhillon1724X
correction

15 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

A idea without Mathematics is just idea or worst fantasy.

Add mathematics if you want your idea to truly survive.
Even if your idea manages to survive critiques,it cant be taken seriously without mathematics.

Some major problems of this paper-

Repeated phrases like “particle clusters,” “energy saturation,” “escaping particles” are used vaguely.

No equations, no symbolic expressions, no measurable quantities — common in AI text meant to sound scientific.

Phrases like “The universe has no perfect spherical clusters” and “Heat is not vibration, but fleeing particles” are grand claims with no physical rigor.

This style is common in AI-generated texts trained on mix of science + philosophical writing.

Its all pointing that its AI generated.

If core idea is your and you know what you are saying and you used AI just as assistant then prove it.

According to my research it can be due to translation too,and chinese papers have philosophical style sometimes.
But you still have to prove it.

Can you answer to questions and critiques?

Where have you gone?

5 minutes ago, kba said:

Friday at 05:22 PM @swansont

Inner tension is only possible if there is a structure to it, meaning it’s made if something. What’s it made of.

And the divergence of the electric field is equal to the charge, meaning field lines begin and end on charges. You said they don’t disappear.

Now you’re moving the goalposts. You claimed “we cannot to imagine something which is absolutelly impossible in our Universe” and now you’re limiting this. Modifying it is basically an admission that your claim was bogus.

---

1. Inner tension of what? Inner tension is impossible to realized by means of structure! Tension realizes only by means of field between any particles. What structure EM field has?

2. Charges can disappear, converting to the field. But field never disappear. Field is a basic form of matter. Where it will disappear to? Charges is just a kind of interaction between particles, which realized by means of field.

3. You cannot to imagine impossible things because you haven't an analogue to do it and unreal parts to compile it. You cannot to imagine impossible things because your brain doesn't work without energy. You cannot to imagine impossible things without your brain which doesn't work independently of our Universe and its laws. Your mind uses only possible understanding processes which is: comparing, opposition, analogue, addition, subtraction, combining, interfering, separating, etc, which applicable to material objects.

Why this is here?

Edited July 28Jul 28 by Dhillon1724X

3 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

Why this is here?

By my mistake. I'm sorry. It's removed.

Edited July 28Jul 28 by kba

Just now, kba said:

By my mistake. I'm sorry. Removed

Good,as if you didnt remove then staff will take action.
Thats why i asked as it seems to be a mistake or spamming.