swansont

As is true for everyone Likewise, we’d like to know your ideas are on solid footing before we waste time learning the subsequent details. e.g. you claim a neutron is an electron magnetically bound to a proton. If that’s a basis for your ideas, I’d like you to justify it. Because if you can’t, i.e. it’s bogus, then anything built on it is bogus as well.

I don’t think this is a zero-sum situation.

Did I call it a force? Did I say anything about the weak interaction at all in this thread? And yet mainstream physics says it’s unitless. If you’re going to use terminology, the default is that it means what is in common use. You agree the constant you want to use is not unitless, so you must mean something else. Come up with a new name for it. Then come up with a model and a way to test it, or evidence from existing experiments That’s more speculation on your part. There’s already a model in use that’s different, and having a bound electron in this way is not consistent with known physics. Plus you need to account for the antineutrino So, again, we need a model and evidence. This is not true just because you say so. I’m not aware that anyone claims this to be the case. Great. Let’s see the model. We want the theory, for starters.

Since the fine structure constant is unitless, and these charges do not have the same units, this cannot be the case. Is it your contention that the fine structure constant is different for protons?

Are they rivals, though? VHS and beta were rivals because you would only use one, but if two approaches can be used in different situations they are complementary, at least to some extent. If approaches have strengths and weaknesses you can tailor your system to what works best in your location or situation.

You can do more than one thing. Preventing carbon emissions doesn’t remove carbon that’s already in the system. Given the state of things, a multi-pronged approach seems prudent.

Planck’s constant. It is the quantum of angular momentum, but is not necessarily the angular momentum of any particular particle. The electron, for example, is spin-1/2. Its angular momentum is hbar * sqrt(s(s+1))

It’s given by h/mc. It does not depend on the angular momentum of the particle

Not in the same way. T = 1/f - that’s reciprocal. As one increases, the other decreases e2 = 8πα · eemax2 is proportional, not reciprocal. Productive for whom? I’m trying to prevent the problem of using symbols that can be easily confused So they can’t be equal using only a unitless constant of proportionality. i.e. your equation is incorrect The singularity? Is this derived somewhere? Presumably you understand it thoroughly, and would be in a position to point out such tests. Unwillingness doesn’t enter into it. I can’t study something you have not presented. I’ve pointed out some fundamental shortcomings of what little you’ve shared. In math, curl is a vector differential operator. If you are not using the standard definition, you need to use a different name. Also, you should peruse our guidelines for posting here. It points out, e.g. “You can't effectively communicate if you are using different definitions than everyone else, or making up nomenclature for things where it already exists.”

Yes, I often listen to LP records and cassette tapes without the need for any external device. Our “reliance” on digital media is because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. If they didn’t, there would have been no drive to adopt the various platforms. Analog media tends to be bulky and difficult to search. The almost-instant availability of digital information is a big argument against “zombification” since we can actually answer questions as they arise, without having to travel access the analog source. It’s far easier to update digital information to keep it current, instead of having to churn out an updated analog version. Analog sources becomes obsolete. What good is having a book from 50 years ago survive, if it doesn’t contain the information from 10 years ago that you are looking for? Is having to go to the library and look through the card catalog to find some books, and then have to look through those books to get the information you want, when you can access wikipedia on your phone? Which option makes us more informed and less zombie-like? You can make the same arguments about the other formats if you aren’t cherry-picking. Vinyl records can become obsolete, too - do they make 78s anymore? They stopped making them in 1959 (I know this because I found it with a computer search, rather than having to go look it up in a book, which might be in the local library, which is currently closed). How easy is it to watch betamax videos? Digital media can be copied quite easily. The information survives if properly stored and cared for. CDs have been around for >40 years

Topological monopoles are not what joigus was referring to. (and aren’t actually monopoles) If the are bipolar magnets then this should be the dipole moment; your equation does not show a reciprocal, and you should use something other than e to represent what you’re talking about, since e is already the fundamental charge. How do your units work here? Magnetic charge and electric charge would not be the same units. How would one test your hypothesis? That doesn’t explain what it is, and without the details of how you would generate one and send it somewhere, is not very illuminating.

As I pointed out, you had previously been given plenty of chances to explain yourself. You get less leeway after you’ve squandered your opportunities. You’re acting like you had not already given us >200 posts and not had other threads closed.

Your “quantum gravity simplified” thread went on for 7 pages without a model. You knew that people responding were familiar with quantum physics, so simply writing down the e.g. energy-frequency relation or the Schrödinger equation wasn’t necessary. And you were told you had one chance. Nobody forced you to hit the button to publish the post. They don’t explain anything.

Without links to their source and a way to vet them they are worthless.

! Moderator Note Material for discussion must be posted; just linking to a paper is not allowed. If it’s not mainstream physics it needs to be posted in Speculations and comply with the guidelines of that section

jnana has been banned for spamming, thread hijacking, soapboxing and bad-faith arguments.

! Moderator Note Posting your speculation in someone else’s thread is hijacking, and the rules require material for discussion be posted here, not via links.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum, not your blog

These are government alerts; I know that the monthly testing of the emergency broadcast system on my TV is rather loud, so it may be that the government dictates this. Amber alerts go to Android phones, too. You can turn these alerts off, which I’m sure that Apple will point out. And likely have medical testimony about whether the alert can do this. But Apple has the big bucks, so they’re a target for lawsuits.

MigL pointed out that material has been declassified, and one of the links I recall said that when some Roswell details were released, there were plenty of people who still think there was a coverup, and still think it was aliens. The release did basically nothing. I think you overestimate the effect here - facts don’t make much of a dent with conspiracy folks. “The government can’t be trusted” colors everything.

Plutonium being famously available in every corner drugstore. If what you claim were true, we’d be awash in nuclear weapons - every country and radical group would already have them.

How something works is not the same as how it’s built. I can tell you, in some detail, how an atomic clock works. It’s not enough information to build one.

Being on youtube doesn’t mean it’s not classified. Leaking doesn’t declassify. We weren’t allowed to view websites with leaked info (Assange/Snowden) because you can’t have classified info on an unclassified machine, and it’s a royal pain dealing with the situation (called spillage) It’s also possible that a Youtube video doesn’t have all the salient details, which might be the classified part. Lots of classified documents have unclassified info in them; they’re classified at the highest level of information that appears. Leakers are not whistleblowers; that has a specific meaning in a legal sense, to which the whistleblower laws apply.

You should read the link I provided. He doubled- and tripled-down on his claims after it was shown that they had no basis in fact. You should become familiar with this saga; he’s not an example of undeserved criticism.

As have I, though it was later identified. But at the time, I didn’t know what it was. I understand the reaction of “what the hell is that?” when it’s something you’re not used to seeing. Before sunrise, a large white, shimmering blob on the horizon - not the moon but the moon illusion was in play. I was driving, so it was tough to assess its motion. It’s one of the reasons I ask how people know how big an item was, because you can’t tell without some kind of reference. You can’t actually tell how fast it was moving. Later identified as an Army blimp moving up the Potomac. It had lots of lights so nobody would run into it. Yes, they would rather obey the law than lose their pension and go to jail But you aren’t in a position to know that they don’t need to be secret any longer.