swansont

It worked for me, editing your profile. I will remove this, but first can see if you can change it. Click on the pic, and then the photo icon in your profile

! Moderator Note From rule 2.8 Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. IOW, threads should not look like blog posts.

Perhaps reading this would help https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

This new learning amazes me. Explain again how sheep's bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes. Anyway, here’s the punchline from the article (note: it’s OK, and in fact preferred, to include a relevant excerpt from a link)

The material doesn’t really matter in terms of how it operates. I remember doing this with string and with copper wire. Yes they are, as they are sound waves. Evidence that they are longitudinal rather than transverse.

As I’m sure everyone recalls, this thread is not about aliens This thread is: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124844-aliens-from-space-split-from-time-to-talk-about-ufos-or-now-as-the-military-calls-them-uaps/

If they have no mass or resistance to change in momentum, then it has no resistance to change in momentum. Adding zero an infinite number of times still leaves you with zero. You don't have a model. You don't make the distinction between any of this. You are co-opting physics terminology, but then assigning behavior that is not consistent with existing physics. e.g. your interaction is not gravitation, because we already have a model for that. Your particles are not gravitons. You can't discuss momentum or mass because your interaction does not follow the laws of physics. If your entities had no mass they must travel at c. They would not collect anywhere. You need new physics to explain other behavior. If you have a field, then make a model using that field. But until you have a model what you have is a story. And it's not a good story, because chapter 2 says one thing, and then chapter 5 says something different, like it was written by someone else and they were trying to get out of a plot hole, without any effort at continuity. And stories aren't enough for discussion in speculations. Case in point: No mass means infinite acceleration under the influence of a force. So either it's nonsense, or you abandon Newton's laws of motion, meaning you come up with a formulation where you can discuss this, with all the equations that allow one to calculate the results you are insisting on.

I don’t find false dichotomies to be all that interesting.

Why would it be infinite? Force is a vector, so an isotropic distribution will add up to zero; for every one at some distance and direction, there would be one at the same distance in the opposite direction. If all they are doing is exchanging energy with each other, the total stays the same. No decrease in temperature. As you say, these interactions are elastic, so there is no dissipation. Some could combine into one, perhaps, but this would require others to have a lot of energy. It might be interesting to model how many could combine, and under what conditions, and for how long. If a high-energy entity comes along, it would break such a combination up. It’s impossible to get my head around your contradictory claims. Does it show this? What is a “light frequency”? More hand-wavy twaddle But you also have suggested they produce spin and charge and mass, while having none of these properties. Why would there be gaps? Gravity is now undetectable? IMO you haven’t done science. You don’t have a model in any meaningful sense, and this is far from “unheard of” That’s not for you to determine You need to have a model and testable predictions

Pull? Do you mean a force? How can you have a force on an object that does not resist a change in momentum? How do they shed energy to get to (or approach) absolute zero? How can one piece together you model when you keep posting contradictory information? They do not resist a change in momentum, but there is a resistance to a change in momentum. You can’t have both. I remember you asserting this, but not where your model shows this. When things are A but also not A, that makes comprehension very difficult. This is a fundamental problem of qualitative claims. You can say things that are inconsistent. With proper math, this doesn’t happen. One reason physics insists on models.

Yes. Can you figure out why? Why would you do this? Athletes tend to have discipline, or develop it. What about gay athletes? What of their self-control? Why haven’t we seen widespread reports about gay athletes unable to properly compete because of “distraction”? (because this is ridiculous?)

And I’m asking how this happens. If they are affected by all other fairies, then certainly they should be affected by one other fairy, and a fairy-fairy interaction could be described. You seem to start this already, with two fairies being described, but the next step is explaining what, precisely, is exhibiting the 1/r^2 behavior. It can’t be a force like in Newtonian physics, because these do not resist a change in momentum. How does your model get to where they have an “effective mass”?

Which, ridiculous as this is*, only happens if there are co-ed teams. Can you provide evidence of there being many of these in the good old days? *if this is what motivates you, you deserve to lose, and possibly get cut from the team. It doesn’t require legislation.

OK, but that didn’t happen here. They asked if something was true, and if so, how big the effect would be. Did you misread the OP?

Seriously? Brand recognition

As you’ve been reminded, sending people to another site in place of discussion isn’t in keeping with the rules. You can never assume anyone has done so. None of that suggests it’s composite That’s not really an answer, and those curves don’t look like inverse-square functions Magic! Then how can your conjecture be falsified?

No. Where did you get that information? WTH is “distracted by their opponent?” The problem wasn’t that sports weren’t segregated, it’s that there were only (or mostly) opportunities for boys In the US this was addressed by title IX, driven by this lack of opportunity No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Nothing about tests of athletic skill, or “distraction” nonsense, seeing as it encompasses more than sports. We didn’t sex-segregate classrooms. “distraction” didn’t enter into it.

I’m not sure I’d include “berating someone for not knowing something” in that assessment.

Did this happen? (Hint:Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is a US company, now headquartered in Plano, TX I lived in Canada for a few years and had trouble getting an auto bought in the US getting warranty service because the US company and Canadian company were different entities)

You could have led with this description Is there any evidence that electrons are composite particles? What else does it depend on? Inverse square can’t be the only dependence. How does the gravitation get to be “very strong” How does time dilation figure into this? They are everything, but nothing more. They attract via gravity, which is inherently weak, yet inexplicably their gravitational interaction is very strong. They comprise particles that have no internal structure, but they are not themselves particles, and they have no properties but the particles they comprise do have properties. And the model you’ve shared explains none of this. Why don’t we call them fairies? Because this is much more magic than science

But biases are like vectors, as you agree with below. Opposing biases would tend cancel. Why would you do the wrong chemical reaction? But you end up with less overall bias, so nobody is exerting the influence they hoped to. How can there be any thought with no funding?

But you said they don’t congregate there. Now you say they do. Why do they? Gravitational attraction? What is the mathematical form of this attraction? What does it depend on? Are you just unwilling to share these details, or do you not actually have these details?

That doesn't answer the question What does the strength of this interaction, between these points, depend on? Even if the strength is a free parameter, you have to have variables in the equation. When you say they are scalar, what do you mean? And what does that have to do with units? In physics terms, scalar either means it lacks a direction or the spin is zero. You need to refrain from making up new meanings for existing terms.

What does the strength of this interaction, between these points, depend on? What does the strength of this interaction, between a point and some particle of mass m, depend on?

The fact that this thread was in speculations as opposed to a mainstream section should be a clue.