Leaderboard

! Moderator Note Do not, under any circumstances, take it to PM. Just cease and desist with the pot-stirring and stick to the topic under discussion

As is true for everyone Likewise, we’d like to know your ideas are on solid footing before we waste time learning the subsequent details. e.g. you claim a neutron is an electron magnetically bound to a proton. If that’s a basis for your ideas, I’d like you to justify it. Because if you can’t, i.e. it’s bogus, then anything built on it is bogus as well.

Just read the posts made in response to you up to this point and look for the sentences with a question mark at the end.

Oh my ... I do believe we have a childish feud going, which now threatens to derail a second thread. Please take it to PM, or one of you travels to the other's location and you both put on boxing gloves, and step in a ring.

I'm sorry to say you did. Here it is: (my emphasis) Reciprocal? What does that mean? I would have guessed "inversely proportional", but no. You at least displayed the maths, so there's no doubt what you meant. So yes, you did claim that, as then I asked, quoting you, so there could be no ambiguity about what I meant. Then you said, And now you change your statement. Other members have problems with the way you use units, justify your concept of "chronovibration", and ignore quantum mechanics, so taken as a whole, I'd say I have very well-founded misgivings that your theory could ever be turned into a sound one, considering you only claim to explain the anomalous quantum Hall effect. You've proven to me you have no understanding of what magnetic charge means in the context of the classical electromagnetic theory.

Surely there is some basic premise that’s testable. Every bit of effort you put into telling us how you can’t present your theory is effort you could have put into telling us your theory.

That is, essentially, what any method that slightly slows the asteroid does. Hit it frontally with a kinetic weapon, it slows a tiny bit, thus arriving at the impact point a tiny bit later...and Earth has moved slightly farther along in its orbital path. You "moved Earth out of the way." 😀

I don't know precisely how Newton or Leibniz obtained the product rule of differential calculus, but it seems rather easy to obtain to me: [math]\text{By definition:}[/math] [math]\dfrac{df(x)}{dx} \buildrel \rm def \over = \displaystyle \lim_{h \to 0} \dfrac{f(x + h) - f(x)}{h}[/math] [math]\text{Therefore:}[/math] [math]\dfrac{df(x)g(x)}{dx} = \displaystyle \lim_{h \to 0} \dfrac{f(x + h) g(x + h) - f(x)g(x)}{h}[/math] [math]= \displaystyle \lim_{h \to 0} \dfrac{f(x + h) g(x + h) - f(x) g(x + h) + f(x) g(x + h) - f(x)g(x)}{h}[/math] [math]= \displaystyle \lim_{h \to 0} \dfrac{f(x + h) g(x + h) - f(x) g(x + h)}{h} + \displaystyle \lim_{h \to 0} \dfrac{f(x) g(x + h) - f(x)g(x)}{h}[/math] [math]= \displaystyle \lim_{h \to 0} \dfrac{f(x + h) g(x) - f(x) g(x)}{h} + \displaystyle \lim_{h \to 0} \dfrac{f(x) g(x + h) - f(x)g(x)}{h}[/math] [math]= \left(\displaystyle \lim_{h \to 0} \dfrac{f(x + h) - f(x)}{h}\right) g(x) + f(x) \left(\displaystyle \lim_{h \to 0} \dfrac{g(x + h) - g(x)}{h}\right)[/math] [math]= \dfrac{df(x)}{dx} g(x) + f(x) \dfrac{dg(x)}{dx}[/math]

You've claimed lots, while explaining nothing. I don't think there is anything more to be gained by having this discussion with you. I don't understand enough about your metaethical I positions yet to know where our points of contention actually lies. This to me sounds like an admission that you're only here to troll and wind me up. I and @TheVathave repeatedly throughout the thread presented our cases. If you've forgotten you can go back and reread them. At this point I'd just be repeating myself for someone who isn't reading to comprehend but is reading to react. If I was soapboxing I'd be the OP. Context Dim. Although I think it's comical that being inclined to thinking more than skin deep for ethical problems has had a large number of thick concepts associated with it created by people who lack moral fiber. Virtue signalling, do-gooder, wokist etc are all thick concepts that put a negative connotation on trying as humans to A) be more considerate of the lives of others and B) try to convince others of the same. I also feel there is a massive difference between people who virtue signal as an aesthetic status symbol thing; and people who are actively engaged in the study of moral philosophy because it's legit their passion. I'm the latter and I consider myself to be an independent ethicist. Laugh at that all you want, but that's just me. I'm not going to change for you.

I don’t think it was. Life back in hunter-gatherer days would have been much simpler, but also brutal, painful, and generally short. There’s nothing wrong per se with technology and civilisation, it’s alleviated a lot of unnecessary suffering, and - broadly speaking - freed up resources that enabled us as a species to pursue things other than immediate survival and procreation, at least potentially. I for one wouldn’t want to go back to the dark times. The problem is only that one has to have a certain degree of wisdom with it, and that’s where we seem to be lacking. We’ve become completely dependent on our own creations, and in some sense relinquished our freedom to them. That’s problematic, but also inevitable I suppose, since our basic instinctual-psychological patterns have remained the same.

Scars by Krizz Kaliko. My man's got a voice like red velvet cookies and cream lol Hip-hop is so underrated because the cream doesn't rise to the top that's where you find the shit instead.

I was responding to Ottos sincere question then Dim decided to have a go. Where was I being fucking childish MigL? Will be you I take into a boxing ring at this rate if you don't learn how to read the room and tell the difference between someone just trying to engage with the discussion and a shit stirring gobshite. One is childish, the other is just trying to discuss without attacking folk and I do not appreciate being charecterised as a child for not taking shit lying down. Go and just leave it alone like Swansont already asked. Like I literally wasn't even fucking talking to Dim and he just pipes up with the trolling because I won't agree with his nonsensical crap in another thread. Thank you!

Does it matter? Someone like Neil inspired someone like Carl... Enough said, move on... 🖖 Dear MSC, Neil is more educated on the subject than you, unless that subject is puberty... 😉

Genuinely not offended, in fact I was saying you'd have to study more about what you are saying in order for me to be offended by your judgement since you honestly don't know the difference between virtue signalling and people honestly discussing ethics in a relevant discussion. I didn't go out of my way to talk about this issue, it's the thread. You are pissing me off a bit however over basically telling us not to have the discussion because the issue is outside our locus of control. When discussion itself, isn't. Why do you care what we talk about when we are all outside your locus of control? Follow your own advice or continue being a hypocrite. I'm past caring about your input at this point. Covert trolls get under my radar but when I realize that's what's going on I'll stop feeding them.

Your response sounds like good science to me. Just deny it because you didn't think of it first. The guys asked for an experiment to prove my theory, and I provided one. Your response is to say, "No way." I'm looking for scientists to discuss my theory with, not senseless cynics. I read in Science magazine this morning, hot off the press, that the QAHE has been detected without a magnetic field. At B = 0 T, Rxy is quantized at ± h / 5e2. As I have been saying, magnetic charge is different from electrostatic charge, and here they are quantizing the QAHE in terms of electrostatic charge. When you use the magnetic charge value that I have provided: 5e2 = 0.917 eemax2 What mainstream physicists consider magneto-"resistance" or "Hall resistance" appears in QMU to be magnetic flux (mflx). According to the physicists, the value of h / 5e2 is about 5 kilohm, 5.163 x 103 ohm to work out the math—just a number that seems "anomalous." When you calculate the value of h / eemax2 in QMU, the result is h / eemax2 = mflx. This may not strike you as significant if you have not followed my posts carefully or read my works. However, I hit the QAHE on the head! This just came out this morning in a highly reputable science publication. The mflx unit is a quantum of magnetic flux experienced by a single electron. I'm not saying my work deserves widespread fanfare, but it warrants further scientific investigation. Science is about investigating promising theories, and my theory is very promising.

Listen very carefully. The prevailing view is that a physical linear timeline is real. A physical linear timeline, such that matter could dilate from one time frame to another, requires each time frame to be populated with a complete copy of the physical Universe in each time frame. An object cannot move among time frames unless there is a physical place to arrive at. There is zero physical evidence for physical matter in any other time frame than the present moment. There is much more than can be said about the lack of physical evidence for a physical linear timeline. You are asking me to provide physical evidence demonstrating that chronovibration is real, but you have no evidence for the prevailing belief. Chronovibration is proposed as the oscillation of forward and backward time such that the net result is the present moment. Physical observations are made of subatomic particles with half-spin properties, but the half-spin does not apply spatially to rotation or angular momentum. In chronovibration, the half-spin nature of subatomic particles applies to the particles seeing only the forward time direction. This would cause subatomic particles to age in the forward time direction while physically existing in a present moment, a present moment that makes no progress toward the past or future. This is what we physically observe. No physical matter has ever been observed leaving the present moment or appearing suddenly from a different moment. So, the physical linear timeline concept has zero physical evidence, and the chronovibration concept agrees with the observable physical evidence. As I mentioned before, and this is my answer to observing chronovibration, the photon speed constant and the Compton wavelength constant are empirically determined. Therefore, the time component, whether linear or cyclical, is automatically inferred as a constant. This type of reasoning occurs throughout physics. I do not have access to all the current technology, either physically or in its literature. This leaves the possibility that someone with available resources would be able to devise an experiment that could physically prove or disprove the concept of chronovibration. Please do not impose more upon me than I can handle, especially with my meager finances. I didn't claim that the ratio of magnetic to electric charge is the same in all particles. In fact, I disagree with that statement. I said the "mass to magnetic charge" ratio is the same in all particles in the Universe. However, I appreciate you applying your skills to what I am presenting, even if you didn't initially understand what I had stated. I am hoping to inspire others with greater skills in electrodynamics to apply Standard Model tools to the new unit system I devised. Although the QMU is based on dimensional analysis, the relationships of the units are different from MKS/SI and some mathematical treatments. I suggest that several of the current math operators in electrodynamics should be dimensional units. If the system proves valid, it would greatly simplify physics and open its understanding to more students. Maybe my system will crash and burn, but my success with QAHE and the Gamma Ray single peak should spark interest in physicists looking for better ways to quantify physics. No, let's not. Yes, it is true that both electrostatic fields and magnetic fields possess divergence. Divergence is not due to the charge; it is a property of the field. Getting into fields is a valid line of inquiry, but let's first gain a common understanding of the geometry of the charges to better understand the fields they produce, at least within my physics theory. I already understand the Standard Model narratives about point particles, their vectors, probability functions, etc. If I was here to improve on the Standard Model, I would say so. Instead, I have said that I am proposing a different understanding of fundamental physics. I propose a different paradigm based on the same constants and data but with different ontologies. This results in a modified set of equations with new equations added. I would not mind sharing my explorations into magnetic moment, but not until we have the same understanding of magnetic charge and its importance in physics. Please tell me that you can understand how the experimental evidence for the QAHE strongly supports my claim for the existence of magnetic charge. You don't have to say I'm right; acknowledge that you understand the simple math that supports my claim.

OK no PM; how about the boxing gloves approach? Might beat some sense into both of them 😄 .

I've explianed why this question is ethically null, you may as well walk around with sandwiche board saying "the end is nigh" or standing on a soapbox in hyde corner shouting "we must end all war's"; my point is, I'm the only one listening. So present your case, without all the hand waving or emotive clause's, and convince 'this old skeptic' why I should believe you? I'm not telling you anything, there's a difference between a soapbox and a lecturn...😇 And if I'm pissing you off, then I'm delighted, bc you're at least desperately trying to think of a way, too put me in my place; and I say good luck on your journey, you might learn something, and at least you stopped head butting that wall for a mo... LOL another neg, at least one of you can't see past the 'fuck you' button.

I only have so much time in my life. Applying my theory to all physics branches and reexamining the basis of all physics is on my to-do list. You have to start somewhere. It would go a lot quicker for me if I didn't meet with so much senseless cynicism and unwillingness to explore simple concepts first. You won't take the time to learn what I am presenting, and instead, your reaction is to deny anything you do not already know. Have you heard the lament about people who are smart but not intelligent? Set aside your to-do list of questions you want to be answered for the moment. Instead, look at my presentation and see if it warrants further development. Perhaps you will discover insights or fix genuine problems in my theory. I have presented several potentially ground-breaking insights in this thread. You have not looked into any of them. Just because I haven't figured out why Holstein cows have black and white spots instead of green and yellow is something we can discuss later. Diversions are irrelevant to the concepts being presented at this moment.