swansont

Why would you use a language model for science or math?

And please compare these other cases with the scenario in the video, where they were unlabeled and poorly shielded. Same kind of radiation? Same activity?

The spectrum of the hydrogen atom is well-known, and agrees with mainstream theory. If they are changed and no longer agree with experiment, then the new treatment is wrong. The spectrum is an observed phenomenon, and does not change. The wavelength is used in e.g. diffraction. If you change the wavelength, then your predicted pattern disagrees with observation, and is therefore wrong. Models must agree with experiment.

You still haven’t posted a summary of the video, and no citations for your other claims,

Does it imply negative masses? You can have negative energy with positive mass.

! Moderator Note You need to post a summary

Because we’re a science discussion site, where people can ask questions?

Water can appear inside the cube if water vapor in it condenses into a liquid, such as from a temperature drop.

And ocean (salt water) density is 1.02 - 1.03

The current state of the GOP suggests that involvement in sexual offenses is considered a job requirement.

Which ones are the first-class?

How does expressing fuel efficiency as an area do this?

You could measure the effect of varying braking but simply subtracting or extrapolating that effect wouldn’t give you the answer, since there is air resistance as well, so you haven’t accounted for all of the dissipative losses.

Yes, but why would you do this? What insight does it provide? You don’t always simplify units. Torque and energy are both N-m in metric units, and N-m is a joule, but it’s not considered proper to express torque in joules, because it’s not energy.

27 Scaramuccis

Gravitons would be virtual particles, not limited by the same restrictions as real particles under classical rules of physics

When you have some physics to add, you can request this be unlocked.

Nothing suggests you have to subtract or add anything to the Bohr radius to form a torus. There’s nothing physical attached to this (you’ve acknowledged the classical radius has no physical significance), you’ve suggested no experimental repercussions of it, and have admitted you haven’t looked at ramifications that have been brought up which would confirm there’s nothing physical to this. It’s up to you to make an experimental connection to show that this isn’t more numerology.

You could pick another small increment to add and subtract, and you would have a different torus. So what? There’s no physics here. It’s still just playing around with numbers.

The Bohr radius and Compton radius and are related to each other by a factor of the fine structure constant, as you note, so beta and gamma are still terms you’ve defined; one is a little bigger than half of the Bohr radius, one is a little smaller.

Right. So instead of 1 kg payload, you have 9 kg you need to initially accelerate for each 1 kg of actual payload.

Laplace’s analysis assumed one would use the retarded position of the sun that dictates the direction of the attraction if there were a finite speed of propagation. AFAIK it does show that a planet would spiral outward. It requires a very large (though not infinite) speed of propagation for stable orbits.

You don’t have a mathematical model to show what your idea predicts, and you have not shown what the mainstream model would predict.

That can only be a statement about Newtonian gravity. How could Laplace show anything about relativity? IOW, Laplace showed something about a model known to be incorrect. So what?

Examples have been given that disprove your hypothesis.