swansont

I don’t know what process you are envisioning. Forming fusion? What is undergoing fusion?

I agree No doubt. And also, I wonder what the planned lifetime of the facility was. There aren’t that many scientific instruments, especially at this scale, that are designed to last as long as this did. Not without large-scale overhauls edit: The instrument was designed to have a ten-year lifetime. http://www.naic.edu/~newslet/no37/NAICNo37.pdf (That’s not to say that this was never extended)

The alleged “lack of major discovery in physics in the last 50 years” is a false premise. As is the notion that innovation requires new foundational laws. All it takes is a look at the last 50 years. Perhaps an investigation of this flawed premise is in order. Yes, it depends on the tools, which have been improving over time. What are your examples of giant leaps vs tiny steps?

Registering more than one account to yourself is not permitted without administrative approval (from rule 2.9) They got approval Yes, it was banned, and I think it would be a bad idea for people to be able to look through your posts that got you banned, and see that you are active, rather than associating the marginally better posts you’ve made since your return with your current name. So this would not get my vote.

A pair of Neutrons will not form a bound state. There is no “neutron fusion”

The distribution of what? How are you using “random”? And yet these processes follow patterns described by statistics, exactly what you’d expect if there were probabilities in play, rather than some entity making a choice.

I don’t work for a company. I do R&D for the government. I make atomic clocks, but they are not sold to any customer.

“Randomly distributed” doesn’t describe the functioning of the universe. But that’s not the issue. It appears to follow laws. If an intelligence were involved those laws still apply, so it doesn’t matter if an intelligence was involved; the intelligence doesn’t override the laws. Things wouldn’t look any different. So there’s no reason to think science should be able to determine this.

I’ll use GPS as an example, since I work in support of it with no commercial interest in the system. We could use computers and the internet as commercial products based on modern science that work, and you nonetheless use.

! Moderator Note You opened a thread on this. Keep discussion of your thesis limited to that thread.

You said “Science should be able to determine whether the functioning of the universe is random or governed by an intelligent force that rules our universe.” What part was accidental?

And you have evidence that modern science has not only been infiltrated by commercial interests, but in a way that invalidates science? Otherwise, why does it matter that there are commercial applications of science? What’s the pathway for flawed science resulting in a product that works?

But you proffered a similar scenario. Where’s the evidence for it?

Zero. We have a model that doesn’t require any. If someone thinks an intelligent agent is required, they own the burden of proof conclusively showing this requirement

POVphysics has been found to be a sockpuppet of Wulphstein. Both are banned.

! Moderator Note No, it was split from that topic because you hijacked it with discussion of fundamental constants and wave functions. ! Moderator Note And you have been told the rules allow you to discuss that in one particular thread, and not bring it up elsewhere. This thread cannot be about your expanding graviton. ! Moderator Note It already is in another thread. It should only be discussed there. As with the expanding graviton. It has a thread already. A discussion of wave functions and fundamental constants can and must proceed without mentioning either. Both already exist in mainstream physics, independent of your pet theory. ! Moderator Note Wave functions exist in physics literature already, describing other things, so this is incorrect and also moot, as we will NOT be discussing expanding gravitons here.

We have Darwin, without an intelligent agent.

Maybe you should stick to asking questions, and refrain from passing along such “insights”

! Moderator Note Repetition is not explanation, nor is it clarification. There’s no actual model, no way to make testable predictions, and you’ve not identified ways to falsify it. You don’t have a theory, and this isn’t rigorous enough to be in compliance with our rules for speculations

Good thing I didn’t refer to XIII, then. I replied to what you said about XV, and your claim it mentioned blacks. Which it doesn’t.

You mean branäs? https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/branaes-laundry-basket-with-lining-rattan-20214731/ You have not come close to posting a theory. How would you test your idea, and/or what evidence confirms it exclusive of mainstream physics? How is disappearing and reappearing in a different place being “fixed” and not motion?

Planes are two-dimensional ! Moderator Note If you don’t address questions/objections it’s considered soapboxing, which will get this locked.

It mentions race. It says “or” so race and servitude are not actually connected in the amendment.

Correct! So how come in all of your responses to this issue you never use or acknowledges this? The OP asks how you set x=0. Y2-Y1/X1-X2 is different There is no limit involved in evaluating Y2-Y1/X1-X2 No, that’s not what it means Because 1 ≠ 100 and 0.25 ≠ 25

Science doesn’t require the hypothesis, so why would it try explain? How would the universe look if this were the case? That’s a dodge. The point here is that it’s not a simple question, because you have not clarified important points that are crucial for answering. It’s an ambiguous question.