MigL

You and MisterMack made the claim. Shouldn't I be asking you ?

The Teller-Ulam 'a-ha' moment was realizing that radiation ( x rays ) have pressure, and the pressure produced by a spherically arranged fission explosion is enough to initiate fusion of the fuel inside of it.

The only difference between a weapon and a reactor is simply the rate of energy release.

As Mordred has already stated, re-pasting the same quotes from your book, and making the same arrogant claims, proves nothing. Mordred has also brought this up previously, and you haven't provided any answer. At ime 10-43 sec, the universe is isotropic, homogenous and in thermal equilibrium. It is composed of only radiation, with no pockets of matter, or mass. There is no curvature to this 'space-time' ( I, and many others, would call it quantum foam ). Since gravity IS space-time curvature ( according to GR ), there is obviously no gravity either. So how can it possibly create anything ???? I haven't changed my mind about your theory being bull, and you seem to be convincing more and more people everyday, that I'm right.

One thing that has happened since the 60s, is the inability of experimental Physics to keep up with theoretical Physics. Even the Glashow, Salam and Weinberg Electroweak unification took 10 years for the detection of neutral currents in neutrino scattering , and 20 years for the dscovery od W and Z gauge bosons in proton/proton collisions. It is only lately that the LHC allows us to go beyond unification energies. Other theories, developed since then, have no hope of being tested experimentally anytime soon, and additionally, some ( SString and M theory ) are so vague, that we have no idea which universe they actually describe. As with your Prime theory, it is extremely easy to make fantastical/outlandish claims ( beyond belief, you could say ), when you know it cannot be supported by experiment or falsified. I get the impression not too many people are impressed by your claims.

Modern Physics tells us that there is no actual 'contact' force. But the classical contact approximation is indistinguishable at macro scales.

Except for the fact that more money in circulation means that more money is competing for a limited amount of goods, and this leads to 'demand-pull' inflation. This type of iflation is seen in the housing/real estate market in Canada , and, along with 'cost-push' inflation ( due to rising costs of production ) is one of the 5 causes of inflation John Cuthber posted about here Always read John's posts; he's a very sharp guy. ( at east, I think he/she's a guy ... )

"Although no particles are known to have negative mass, physicists (primarily Hermann Bondi in 1957,[7] William B. Bonnor in 1964 and 1989,[13][14] then Robert L. Forward[15]) have been able to describe some of the anticipated properties such particles may have. Assuming that all three concepts of mass are equivalent according to the equivalence principle, the gravitational interactions between masses of arbitrary sign can be explored, based on the Newtonian approximation of the Einstein field equations. The interaction laws are then: In yellow, the "preposterous" runaway motion of positive and negative masses described by Bondi and Bonnor. Positive mass attracts both other positive masses and negative masses. Negative mass repels both other negative masses and positive masses. For two positive masses, nothing changes and there is a gravitational pull on each other causing an attraction. Two negative masses would repel because of their negative inertial masses. For different signs however, there is a push that repels the positive mass from the negative mass, and a pull that attracts the negative mass towards the positive one at the same time. Hence Bondi pointed out that two objects of equal and opposite mass would produce a constant acceleration of the system towards the positive-mass object,[7] an effect called "runaway motion" by Bonnor who disregarded its physical existence, stating: Such a couple of objects would accelerate without limit (except a relativistic one); however, the total mass, momentum and energy of the system would remain zero. This behavior is completely inconsistent with a common-sense approach and the expected behavior of "normal" matter. Thomas Gold even hinted that the runaway linear motion could be used in a perpetual motion machine if converted to circular motion" From Wikipedia Negative mass - Wikipedia But others, in particular R L Forward ( yes, the sci-fi author of Dragon's Egg ) have shown that the phenomenon violates no conservation laws and is mathematically consistent. So yes, Moon, there is a very slight possibility that exotic matter, with negative mass, and which violates positive energy conditions could exist ( though I find the idea ludicrous ), and would allow forstabilization of wormholes and travel to the past/future/far-away regions of space at FtL speeds.

I prefer the old fashioned approach. I just add another digit to my IQ, et voila' ... ( look, I've already learned another language )

I don't want to 'muddy the waters' for Kenny, as I don't know his level of understanding. He may, however, ask "What is the lunar lander pushing against when it accelerates upwards from the lunar surface ?". F=ma is not the complete analysis in such cases. A rocket expells part of itself ( the fuel ), at high speed, and accelerates in the opposing direction, ensuring that momentum is conserved.

Genio has shown 'contempt' for people who put in the effort and hard work to understand a subject and get a degree. But is he angry at them; I don't think so. Quite possibly, he is angry at himselffor never having the intestinal fortitude and willingness to be able to do the same

You're right CharonY, I didn't read the original paper. What struck me as odd ( and L Krauss ) was the fact that a scientific rebuttal wasn't allowed, because the original paper was deemed 'non-scientific'. So why was it printed in a scientific journal ? I only bring up the teacher/student example to demonstrate that sometimes hierarchical structures are necessary. Like going to war with an army without hierarchy, and everyone is equal ?| Or you can tell a judge he's out of order at your trial ?

Look. It is relatively simple to estimate the visible mass-energy distribution of a galaxy, compare it to the galactic rotation curve and get a reasonably good estimate of the amount of Dark Matter which must be in the spherical halo surrounding that galaxy and account for the deviation in rotation. Your job is then simple. Take that same galaxy's visible mass-energy distribution, extract the relevant gravitational parameters from it, plug them into your Prime Mechanics equation , and see if it produces the same 'ball-park' number for the amount of Dark Matter, which you say is produced by gravity. If it doesn't, it's a non-starter ( even if the math is pretty ). The Nobel committee does not hand out prizes for vanity and grandiose boasting. Only for theories which predict actual physical observations.

Seems very convenient that Prime Mechanics does most of its 'heavy lifting' prior to the Big Bang, in the Planck era at t=10-43 s; an era we can probably never investigate, it is akin to saying 'God did it'. As for the other post Big Bang effects, most can be explained by conventional accepted Physics, and while I've read your claims, you still haven't presented anything quantitative regarding Dark matter and galactic rotation, nor about Black Holes. ( what does "keep the Dimension flowing" even mean ? ) And our rules require that you present it here; I shouldn't have to read your book. Until then, I'm going to have to call bullsh*t.

I acknowledged that ...

Certainly among the students. Would you think the teacher, at the whiteboard ( or blackboard ), should have equal 'opportunity and experience' ? Or do you agree there has to be a hierarchy there.

Even if you remove the offensive whiteboard and marker, there is an inherent hierarchical structure to the teacher/student relation which cannot be disposed of. A boardroom or meeting room might be different, but you simply cannot have 'equality' in a teaching situation.

You can classify costs any way you want. In the end what matters is that the producer must earn money; if he doesn't he goes out of business.

Hey ! I'm a white male capitalist ( with a soft socialist underbelly ). I think I treat my fellow humans decently and with respect. And I don't even have a dog ... Last I checked, W Buffet and B Gates were both white male capitalists, and each of them has donated more money to various charities than all of SFn's members combined incomes. ( although Bill did treat his wife badly ) Generalizations about people often come back to bite you in the ass.

Over the past ftwo years, shortages and increased transportation costs have increased the cost of food, which has increased the costs of services up to and including the lending rate, in an effort to control rising inflation. Is any of this in dispute ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but most costs incurred by producers are passed on to customers, as they will either make money or go out of business. This cost escalation has a domino effect, abd if not an isolated case, can, and will, lead to inflation. Is any of that in dispute ? Now we just need to establish if labor costs are different, or the same, for a producer as other costs. Obviously if they are the same, they will lead to similar forcings to cause inflation; if they are different ( as in purchasing new equipment which adds costs, but increases production ) then they may not cause inflation. And also obvious is the fact that some producers/services will be affected differently than others, and some might be forced to raise prices while others may not.

I am nt upset about it at all. Just thought it was interesting, and asked for others' opinions. I only wear bow-ties with a tux, so please don't compare me to T Carlson. Also I am not Italian, but multicultural Canadian for the past 49 years. 😀 😀

Just an observation, but it seems to me Mordred and the Baron are not discussing the Physics of a 'Theory of Everything', but rather the mathematical tools needed to 'build' models representing the Physics. IOW, instead of discussing the merits of a 3/12 roof pitch, they are discussing what type of hammer is needed to build it.

Those of you who publish original research may find the following interesting, and suggesting of an 'agenda' not backed up by science ( wish BeeCee was still here; he was passionate about this sort of thing, and had great respect for L Krauss ) Lawrence Krauss: Whiteboards are racist because woke physics journal says so (msn.com) What do you guys think; tempest in a teapot, or the unravelling of society as we know it ?

If I did get a 'good take' on that mess you posted, then, how about working on some numbers that would provide evidence for your theory, as I suggested. Evidence is what convinces people; not shouting that your idea is the best, and other's accepted ideas are outdated. Yes, Navier-Stokes would describe laminar flow over smooth surfaces, and turbulent flow around sharp edges, in the case of a fluid. Electrons ( and holes )in semiconductors follow field lines which are necessarily smooth ( and differentiable ), so what purpose would your treatment serve ?

Do you really think that applies to the kid working at Burger King, or the single mom working at Tim Horton's ? I think Sensei has some valid points, and before asking him for inflation data to support his statement, one should clarify exactly what unemployment rate is ( as Sensei rightly points out ), as that is the whole basis for this thread.