swansont

Explain, please

! Moderator Note This nonsense has gone on long enough

! Moderator Note It doesn’t matter what you believe. It’s what you can show, in a scientific context. You haven’t backed up your assertion. So we’re done here.

No, their wavelength depends on momentum, which is variable, and is not the wavelength of light they emit, which depends on details of the atom. You should start a new thread to get these things sorted out. This thread is about clocks/time. edit: I’ve done it for you. But stop hijacking threads. It’s getting tedious

It might do that, but you said “seek” which has certain implication That’s subjective. Easier for you. But if it’s wrong, then it doesn’t matter so much if it’s easier to understand

Their orbitals are not an inherent property, and they do not have colors.

! Moderator Note There were a number of assertions, which is one problem, since they were nonsensical. And the problem with the questions is that you hijacked the discussion. The thread was about unification and these posts are about educating you on the Higgs and other issues. The “button” you pushed was ”I’m going to disregard the rules”

It’s not division, and you are talking about the intensity (a property of the light) which varies as 1/r^2 for a point source. Basically you are repeatedly confusing the map and the land. They aren’t the same thing. I don’t care what you believe. This would be something for speculations, if you had a model so it could be tested, or it’s a WAG, in which case it has no place here. science discusses how nature behaves, not necessarily why it behaves that way. You reach a point where the latter can’t be tested, so it’s not subject to science. No, because we understand what a force is and when it’s required F=ma tells me that anything can move without an applied force. A force is required to change the motion (acceleration)

no, 1/2 does not. That’s still not defined specifically enough. What are you blathering about?

What is the relationship between internal and external pressure for a static system? What happens to pressure when volume decreases?

The potential realities are in the application, not in the equation itself. You don’t need to physically divide anything in half in order to do the math No, they really don’t

There seems to be only one source, with no detail as to how it was collected and what biases might exist.

No, it does not. There are no physical realities that accompany the math.

QM disagrees. Electrons are identical, and can exist be at more than one point of space at a time.

forces aren’t lines Light speed isn’t propulsion.

No, probably not. You would be using an effect of GR to explain GR. Not to mention implying a causal connection that doesn’t exist.

A QM operator doesn’t “convert it into a physical quantity” The operator gives you a number, which represents the value. If you use the Hamiltonian you find the value of the energy, but you don’t actually get energy from that operation. The information about the quantity is in the wave function.

! Moderator Note OK, then. We’re done. Don’t bring this up again.

Which would be a coup, and not something covered by the constitution (other than to define it as treason). It does not allow this process to begin.

! Moderator Note I take it you will not be addressing the questions put to you. Not be keeping to the code, as it were. If your next response doesn't address this, we're done.

You still have the same problem of time passing differently for different particles, which violates the EEP. Specifically, local position invariance (location and speed affect time) Again, you are using decoherence as if it were magic. What coherence is present that allow for them to decohere? Please stop saying decohere (or any derivatives) without explaining this. You're trying to get to step 6, and you haven't explained all of the previous steps. 1) Of what theory? You don't have one. and 2) you don't have a theory without a mathematical model. The model comes before/during, not after. The premise that things have a coherence that you thus far refuse to disclose, for one.

No. Lenz's law will not result in a force larger than that of gravity. The best it can do is balance it. Otherwise you have a violation of conservation of energy. You could make two tube + platform systems and couple them with a pulley + cable, so one goes up while the other goes down. It would double the slowing effect (so you could use fewer magnets on each platform) and the empty one would rise while the other one descended. (In reality there are a number of technical issues with this system if one wanted to actually build it. Platform tipping and jamming, for example. If it's the harness as you describe, there would be the worry that the magnets get too far from the metal and decrease the retarding force, plus the practical consideration of making a jacket full of magnets without them sticking to each other as you put it on or took it off)

That would be a reason why "our" experiments are better. They are documented and (in principle) can be replicated or repeated. One year in his frame. There is no reason that this specific experiment needs to be done to verify relativity.

! Moderator Note Our expectations are laid out here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

It still violates the equivalence principle to claim that something experiences time differently if it has more mass, and you haven't provided even a whiff of a mathematical model in support of your assertions. Plus your original post made wide-ranging claims, not limited to fundamental particles.