swansont

I've written you off as a lost cause.

That has no meaning in the context of physics. Negative or positive numbers associated with them? That's ridiculous. That's not going to work. Photons and antiphotons are both spin 1 and can be either right-or left circularly polarized. I can change the polarization of a photon by passing it through the appropriate optics. And what of linearly polarized photons? First of all "12 o'clock" is an arbitrary direction, and more importantly, electrons do not have defined trajectories in atoms. There is no "orbit" With " there is a direction in which photons with the same orientation will not go" you have not explained what you mean - photons with the same orientation as what?

What do you mean by "positive" and "negative" events? "Negative events are events lying on the negative axis, should some observer provide a zero point." is not helpful How do you tell the difference between a photon and an antiphoton, experimentally? That would be a problem, then, seeing as how this is a foundation of relativity. Evasiveness is not recommended here. If you aren't willing to present details and defend your idea, your stay will be quite short. Give some examples.

"Asteroid (52768) 1998 OR2 will make a close approach to Earth on April 29. The hefty space rock has an estimated diameter of 1.1 to 2.5 miles (1.8 to 4.1 kilometers)" https://www.space.com/asteroid-1998-or2-earth-flyby-april-2020.html NASA has that range of values, too It's possible that the people quoting a diameter are using one of the endpoint values in that range. Some may be choosing the bigger value because that sensationalizes the reporting. P.S. It wasn't hard to find better sources than The Express.

I don't see any equations. Can you predict anything? You state that c is the maximum speed - based on what? You say "We have that the theory of defining photons my be tested by proving: there is a direction in which photons with the same orientation will not go." What direction is that?

! Moderator Note Please get in the habit of citing your sources.

Irrelevant even if true. The issue is whether something is useful in some other state. 'What was present in nature before blood reached its current state, and how did that function in organisms?' would be a question to ask. One could ask about organisms that don't use blood. One could ask what was the fitness improvement blood provided, and how that changed over time. It is equally true to say that a motorcycle has multiple essential parts, and if you remove one of them you don't have a motorcycle anymore. But remove the engine and you basically have a bicycle. So while you don't have a motorcycle, that phrasing misses the point (perhaps intentionally) that you still have a viable vehicle.

Newtonian gravity depends on mass and distance. You could express the mass in terms of a density, but it would also then depend on the size.

No, the discussion was physics, where you hash out models (meaning there is math) and compare them to the real world via experiment. Science is objective, so it's not based on your perception. If one wants to propose some new model of how things work, they have the responsibility to have acquired the tools to do so. If they don't have them, they should be asking questions about science (and possibly math), rather than presuming to announce that they have answers.

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged. One per topic, please.

! Moderator Note Let's get back on track to the topic of the OP, please. Discussing the details found in the Bible or the function of it should be in a separate thread.

! Moderator Note You aren't going to find out here.

Is that social, or is that anthropomorphizing some other behavior? (The way the OP is using social, at least. I don't think biologists use it the same way, and I've not seen anything in the posts that indicate the OP really understands the terminology. At least, that's my impression.)

Most of the biomass on earth is not animal. If anyone wants to explain how evolution of fungi and bacteria are driven by social interaction, I'll be fascinated to read about it.

That's one aspect of a social species. You're trying to say this is representative of all evolution, and that's extrapolating in the wrong direction. You can't go from specific to general based on one data point. To quote from The Logician: 'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bulls**t. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. IOW, all social behavior is the result of evolution, but not all of evolution deals with social interaction

Whose words are they? Where did you read them? "Cooperating" genes and/or cells has nothing to do with social interaction.

And even in conventional electricity, the net flow of electrons is slow. The current is caused by the massive numbers of charge carriers, and the fact that the interaction proceeds at the speed of light in the material. But the electrons themselves have a drft velocity far, far slower. To have electricity you need free charge carriers, and that's typically the electrons. You could do this with other charged particles, but you'd have to create a condition where they are the free charge carriers, and that just doesn't happen except in very specific circumstances. The fact that electrons are stable and much less massive than protons, and don't bind to other particles except via the electromagnetic interaction (unlike protons binding to neutrons and other protons) is the reason they are free to create currents in conductors.

Who are "they" and can you give specific examples (i.e. links to where this is presented)? I'm pretty sure there's a whole lot of evolution that has nothing to do with social cooperation. Yes, evolution is an optimization process, based on feedback from environmental conditions, though biologists don't describe it quite that way (that leans more toward physics/engineering terminology) ! Moderator Note I will point out that your previous ramblings were sent to the trash owing to their lack of coherence, and this one is not much better. You need to back up what you say, and do a better job of explaining what you are claiming. Moved to speculations, at least for the moment.

! Moderator Note This isn't speculation as we define it. It's guesswork, and this isn't the WAG forum. It's OK to ask questions. But don't pretend that you are presenting anything resembling a scientific theory with this, meaning that what you are doing is not consistent with posting in speculations.

Absolutely. I do applied R&D is a very specialized area. For someone closer to the cutting edge of basic research, the landscape likely changes much more rapidly.

! Moderator Note That’s not the topic of this thread ! Moderator Note PSA to all: a reminder that we are not going to entertain conspiracy discussion.

Confirmed, not proven, and Einstein’s model meant one could quantify his prediction. None of which is given here. GR would not allow for such an effect as claimed with a much smaller mass such as a flying saucer. To the extent one could call this a prediction, it’s falsified.

That’s going to make it difficult to comply with the rules of speculations. How would one test/falsify your idea?

Do the calculation of how much energy it would take to do this.

<sings “Moon River”>