Strange

And, even simpler, in the case of the Apollo missions, there is a point where the gravitational force of the Moon exceeds that of the Earth and the craft starts falling towards the Moon (and similarly for the return journey, falling back to Earth).

Calculate something real: energy levels in hydrogen or something Saying "these waveforms look just like these other ones" is not evidence of anything.

As you won't do the calculations of anything to compare with reality, how can we know.

As suggested, why not show us that they can calculate physical. You have just avoided doing this again.

! Moderator Note You are not making much sense. If you cannot make a clear statement of what you want to discuss, this thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note Please do not hijack other people's threads with your own speculation

Galaxies do not create significant gravitational waves (note that "gravity waves" are something completely different). And even the "large" gravitational waves we can detect from black holes only move things by a minute amount. There isn't enough energy to move anything much. Plus, it would just move things sideways and then back again. Not propel you anywhere.

I'm not sure I would call that "rotation". But perhaps the OP (and me) is thinking of something with no external forces applied. In which case, they would be correct, no?

I wouldn't worry. There are over 1 million posts already. And one thread which consists of nothing but videos. So I think the forum can cope!

Except that is not generally true. What if the kinetic energy is 13.732 J and the potential energy is 5.275 J. How does that relate to anything digital? That is (1) non-standard notation, (2) pointless and (3) shows that your derivations from it are incorrect. So you don't need the spurious (1). But as KE=PE is only true in special circumstances (like when they are coincidentally equal) then KE/PE=1 is not generally true, either. And kinetic energy does not have a direction. There is no such thing as negative kinetic energy. It can only be positive.

Exactly. So dark matter has kinetic energy because it is in motion. It does not exert a force because it does not interact. (Just like neutrinos, if you think it is impossible for something like this to exist.) Also, the amount of dark matter within the solar system is very small - about equivalent to a medium sized asteroid spread throughout the whole solar system. It only has an effect on galactic scales because most of the galaxy is space (rather than stars and planets) and so, in total, it comes to a large amount.

I don't know what this has to do with kinetic energy. Are you assuming that kinetic energy is something to do with interacting or hitting things?

See that "gravitational effect"? that means it has mass. If it has mass, it has kinetic energy. We can calculate the average velocity from the distribution of the dark matter within and around galaxies and hence its kinetic energy. You seem to have got into a mode of dismissing anything that you don't already know as being wrong, so there seems little point continuing this conversation.

I think you have had some good answers to those parts that a re amenable to detailed analysis. The rest is too vague to comment on. What makes you think it doesn't have kinetic energy? Or are you now just being contrary for the sake of it?

Very good point!

Well, of course it does. It has mass (because it has a gravitational effect) and it is moving. KE = 1/2 mv2

! Moderator Note Moved to Puzzles section Spoilers: https://oeis.org/A000043 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=factorise+(2^92+-+1)

You might catch it again, and have more serious consequences. Or you might catch a future novel disease. Not sure how that is going to help. But do try and ensure you don't spread the disease to anyone else just because you think you can't catch it again. Because it is not a subject I know anything about. I did a quick search and saw a lot of research into SARS vaccines that seem to work. So I will wait to see what someone more knowledgable says. Even if we haven't had a vaccine for an RA virus before, doesn't mean it is not possible. It could just be that it hasn't been important enough until now. I don't know.

Not true. If you drop something, then it's kinetic energy will increase while its potential energy decreases. What is "digital zero"? How does it differ from any other zero? What does the notation PE(1) mean? How do you get that? And it is obviously not correct. An object sitting on the table has potential energy, but zero kinetic energy. Therefore KE/PE = 0. Apart from the fact that we have established that your equation is wrong, this statement is not true either. KE=PE + 0 is true for both KE=1 and PE=-11 and KE=-1 and PE=1. The same errors are repeated throughout your text, so there doesn't seem to be any point spending more time on it. Not necessarily. Temperature doesn't have a direction and we can measure something as being -5ºC. And that doesn't even have the opposite effect. An object at 5º and an object at -5º will both warm up to reach room temperature. Also, in the specific case of kinetic and potential energy, they are both scalar values and do not have a direction. Do you have any evidence of this? Many things appear to be continuous (like energy, for example) rather than discrete. I think you are just making stuff up. Meanwhile, a lot of processes in the real world cannot be reversed. "Because I cannot mention God, I am going to mention God". Brilliant. Please keep your irrelevant religious beliefs out of it. No one cares. Also almost nothing you have said in your post is correct, so if you are using it as evidence for god, then you seem to have proved that your god doesn't exist. Well done.

Anecdotes are not sensible data to make personal or public health decisions on. However, it does seem that many, possibly most, people have mild or no symptoms. This has frequently been in the media, including TV. However, a significant proportion suffer sever consequences and many of those die. So it is silly to try and dismiss it. But yes, Star Trek is not real. 🙂

Just as an aside: personally, I would prefer that you ask the questions in the appropriate sub-forum. Partly because you might end up with a lot of (interesting) discussion about one or more questions, and that could get confusing (and difficult to split out into separate threads. Also, you might get a better response in the appropriate forum because some people only read stuff that is posted in Math or Physics or whatever. (I am posting this as both an ordinary member and as a moderator; which is why it is not highlighted as a Mod Note.) But good luck with the book search!

! Moderator Note I'm going to move this to Speculations to see if anything sensible can come from it.

As well as databases, data structures have a more general meaning in programming as a way of organising data. One of the simplest structures is an array, where you have a number of things in consecutive locations in memory and you can select one by an index (its position in the array). That is useful for a lot of things: you can go through them in order, you can straight to any specific item, etc. But if you want insert something in the middle (to keep them in alphabetical order, say) then you have to move everything up in memory to make room for it. Som this can be slow. So if you want to be able to go through in order but also quickly add and remove items (but don't care about going straight to item N) then you might put them in a "linked list" data structure. (And if you need to be able to go through the list backwards and forwards, then you might use a doubly-linked list.) If you need faster access the the Nth item, then maybe a tree structure. Or, if you want to look up things by name, then you might use a "dictionary", which is like an array, but instead of indexing it by number you can use arbitrary strings. The best data structure for a problem often depends on the algorithm (and vice versa). So you will often find computer science books with titles like "Data structures and algorithms" (I had a good one by Sedgewick, but it is probably out of print now. I'm sure there are others.)

Does that make you stop and think that perhaps you should fill the gaps in your knowledge before speculating? We are not proposing extra dimensions. But it is worth noting that if the model required extra dimensions, it would include them whether we could visualise them or not. And, if the current model included extra dimensions, it would be because their effects could be tested. It is only irrelevant to your idea because you do not have a mathematical model. The only thing that is insufficient is your understanding. (And that is not the basis on which theories are judged.) If you are interested in understanding it better, then I think the "surface of last screaming" analogy is the best explanation I have seen: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Lineweaver/Lineweaver7_2.html It is not an attempt to discredit your theory. It is just an attempt to help you understand the current model - the one that works. (Well, admittedly, if you understood the current theory, you would realise that yours doesn't work and isn't necessary.) We are trying to help you understand some of the basic concepts (like the source of the CMB, the fact the universe is unbounded, etc). That is surely a good thing? We have corrected the details that are obviously wrong (like the CMB, for example). But most of your idea is so vague and not based on any physics, that it is hard to say much about it ("it is not even wrong" as someone put it). If the CMB could be explained by matter-antimatter, don't you think someone would have thought of that? But also: it doesn't need an explanation: it was predicted on the basis of well-understood physics. And then discovered, hence confirming the theory. That is how science works. Actually, it is still a good example of the point being made (which you seem to have missed). Imagine you are flying around inside a giant torus. Your friends said "we'll meet in the middle" but you have been going round and round for ages and have realised there is no middle. But you are right, the universe is not a torus. But that's the thing about analogies: they can be useful to make a single point, but don't apply beyond that. It is possible (if unlikely) that large enough amounts of matter and anti-matter got separated early in the universe and formed separate galaxies, or groups of galaxies. People have considered this possibility. Then, being scientists, predicted what the consequences would be and then tested the idea. If there were these isolated areas of matter and antimatter then, because the universe is full of gas everywhere (hydrogen mainly; we can measure its presence throughout the universe; as well as it being predicted by the Big Bang model) there would be areas where the hydrogen part of the universe and the anti-hydroegn part of the universe came into contact. Even with the near-vacuum of interstellar hydrogen, there would be interactions and annihilations producing radiation. And radiation of very specific frequencies. People have looked to see if that radiation exists. And no, not in the amounts required to support the original hypothesis. (Although evidence for small amounts of antimatter in unexpected places was found, so that was a nice side effect of the research.) Here's the thing: any part of your idea that you can make specific enough to test (compare with known physics or known experimental results) will turn out to be false. The rest is too vague to pass judgment on (which does not mean it might be right). No one is saying you are dumb. But you clearly have some gaps in your understanding. That's fine, we all do. Learning is what makes science interesting. But that makes it hard for you to look objectively at your own idea. Just because it makes sense to you (which it must do, because you made it up to fit in with your level of understanding) doesn't mean that it must be right; or even has any chance of being right. And your ideas are not being rejected because you are an outsider. But because they don't work. The trouble is, modern physics is so complex that it is pretty much impossible for an "outsider" (and by this, I don't mean someone "outside university" or "outside science"; I means someone who does not have a deep understanding of the subject) to come up with useful ideas or insights. I have come across people on science forums who had an initial idea, rather like you, but then decided they needed to learn more in order to develop the idea. After years of self-study of theory and math, they either eventually realise that their idea was hopefully naive (but are happy to have learnt enough to know that) or they have realised they need another decade or two of study to get anywhere near enough understanding. The problem is, ideas are easy. Anyone can have them Including experts in the field. The difference is that they will do some mental or back-of-the-envelope calculations and quickly realise that 99% of the ideas don't work. The 1% they might take a bit further, discuss it with friends, no a bit more complex calculations and realise that 99% of those don't work, either.And so it goes on. For example: the CMB. There have been, in the past, very serious cosmologists who doubted the Big Bang model. (There may still be a few.) As the CMB is one of the most convincing pieces of evidence for the Big Bang, they had to try and come up with alternative explanations. There have been lots: matter-antimatter interaction, starlight scattered by dust, and all sorts of weirder ideas. They have all been tested and none of them fit the evidence as well as the Big Bang. But, more important than that, a mode, has to fit all the evidence. It is no good coming up with one explanation for Hubble's law, another one for CMB, another one for the amount of hydrogen and helium in the universe, another one for Olber's paradox, etc, etc. when we have one explanation that explains them all. Sorry, not all related to your idea, but I hope it helps you get a better idea of how science actually works, and why (I'm sorry) your idea is not going to fly.

Nice