swansont

You could ask questions and learn, instead of proposing new science based on insufficient knowledge

Physics tells us otherwise

We have a fairly successful model for why fission happens. “The equation goes toward zero, and whenever it goes past zero, something significant in the atom changes.” isn’t particularly rigorous. Post better science, and your reputation will improve.

Any proposed experiment has to be possible in principle. Out of the many thousands of experiments that have been done, surely you can glean some supporting data.

Chromosomes alone does not indicate any individual’s ability at sports. So any alleged biological advantage has to go beyond your chromosomes. It’s ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

I had a career as an atomic physicist, and never once did I think of atoms as alive, nor would that fiction have helped my understanding. It might have impeded it. But I can only speak for myself. We have QM interpretations to aid in understanding. But you’d need to lay out a case for why this would be helpful to someone. We have a framework in physics for understanding why certain states are stable, and it’s based on energy, and having a pathway to another state.

Even before that, for this thread (or perhaps another, since this one is supposed to be about gender), we need to have participants acknowledge the reality that the notion of sex is more complicated than what chromosomes you have, or what your visible genitalia are.

Except they aren’t necessarily based on biological sex. Some of them are based on gender. Cis males, on average, outperform cis females “biological” determination can be based on chromosomes, or by the visible reproductive organs. And, as has been noted a number of times, either is only a very coarse description - there are a number of biological attributes if you look closer.

Earnshaw’s theorem tells us that you can’t confine a charge with static electric fields.

These equations need to line up with reality, meaning that they need to be confirmed by experiment. What experimental evidence can you give us?

You need to show how this can be tested - how does this match up with real evidence?

! Moderator Note Please note that chatgpt is not a technical resource and has well-documented issues regarding the quality if answers it gives (it makes things up). We don’t permit its use for answers in mainstream threads

The more pertinent question is does the model predict anything? Theories do more than explain behavior. They must have some kind of predictive power. They have to be falsifiable.

And no matter how many neutrons you have, it’s an isotope. So “Atoms would rather not be isotopes” is a non-sequitur

But beta decay happens. Certain isotopes “want” to become other isotopes. For beta decay, it’s because there are too many neutrons, or too few, compared to the number of protons.

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged

We already do Such observation is anecdotal, and probably of limited help. Observation by trained professionals - who know what to look for - is probably more helpful. Analyzed? Probably not unethical, if users had consented to it, and you aren’t profiting in some secret way. Consent would be required. Research where you are risking some sort of harm without consent would be unethical.

I can’t work it out for myself. I can’t fathom why a woman who has been artificially inseminated to have a child with her partner has any bearing on this conversation.

Why don’t you answer the question? What is the point of noting that this couple has a child? (Caster Semenya is legally a woman. The “wrongly assigned” notion is your own.)

Yes, and? What significance do you think this little blurb holds? It’s not like this is the only same-sex couple to have kids.

I got my masters and doctorate in physics after a tour of duty in the navy, and one of my fellow grad students had done a tour in the air force, so it’s definitely possible.

It’s really quite silly to address one point of contention by ignoring or discarding all the other issues. You have to do all of them for the proposed system to work. It’s not that you can’t get a car to go that fast, it’s that you can’t get a car to go that fast and do all the other things you’d need to do to have this be like a fast train. At the indy 500 they scour the track for foreign objects, don’t run in bad weather, and have highly specialized vehicles. How much does it cost to run of those cars? It takes a pit crew to maintain it during the race. You get rid of the driver with an autonomous car but now you need a pit crew every ~100 miles to change the tires and do other maintenance? C’mon.

! Moderator Note You have a thread for this. Stick with that

Now tell us how this can be tested, or evidence to support it. How does one quantify c? What is the state of an atom? None of those are units

! Moderator Note You need to have a sufficiently-developed idea that you can make specific predictions. A mathematical model, or evidence.