Strange

Its your science fiction story, you can make up anything you like. Dragons could have evolved, for example. Or life is impossible so the Earth is just a barren rock in space.

It seems like a very complicated way of calculating squares. And it will inly work for numbers up to 7, if I understand it correctly.

There is nothing needing a solution there. That is not what Occam's razor says. Photons do not have mass. Most of this is reasonably accurate, if a little garbled. It doesn't really say anything new. Can you show, in suitable mathematical detail, that this spinning dipole model accurately predicts observed and measure behaviour? Where did that silly idea come from? Correct. Nope. This is shown to be false by experiment. In an experiment such as the "quantum eraser", where none of the photons that pass through the slits are measured (until they reach the screen) can you explain (mathematically) how measurements of other (entangled) photons that do not contribute to the interference pattern can change the result of the experiment?

Speculations is for people presenting a new theory. Do you have a theory to present? I thought you were just asking questions. You are allowed to ask questions. No one has said you can't. (We are also allowed to ask you questions. It seems only fair.) I and others have tried to answer some of them, and asked for clarification about others. So I'm not sure what you are complaining about.

Well, obviously. But that doesn't make 24 hours a low G.

You could if you did it before I managed to file my patent. It's a long time since I did any patent work, but I was under the impression that the USA got rid of the one year "grace period" when they removed the "first to invent" rule (so they would be consistent with the rest of the world).

And, as usual, your incoherent ramblings don't answer the question. Of course that frequency has a period. It is 24 hours. Sheesh. (I thought that number looked wrong. It is nearer 10-5 Hz.) The frequency of the lowest musical G is 12.25 Hz; ie. roughly one million times higher pitch than the rotation of the Earth (so not even a harmonic relationship). I can't see much pleasure in music consisting of a drummer striking a drum once every 24 hours. We get by because we don't use the Earth as a time reference.

How one Earth (excuse the pun) can be a musical note? It is 0.00667 Hz 1.157x10-5, well below the range of human hearing. The French tried this after the Revolution. It never aught on. Also, the Earth's rotation is far too variable to be used as a time standard.

I think that is sort of what I was trying to say. I suppose trying to get someone else to accept the "evidence" is exactly the same as getting them to accept the faith in the first place. The two go hand in hand. Two sides of the same coin.

Or just accept it is a purely matter of faith and both evidence and reason are irrelevant to it. (I always worry about people whose faith is so weak they feel the need to try and bolster it with false arguments.)

I think the purpose of this thread is for Capiert to get some suggestions for online courses to study maths and science at the appropriate level. (Not for some stranger to pry into my private life.) I suggested Coursera (coursera.org) as a starting point. And the Open University. Any other recommendations?

I see no reason why that should be true. But if it is, then it creates a problem. If A has a property, then maybe we can find B that explains it. But what about B, surely we need to find C that explains that. And then D to explain C and so on ad infinitum. You have invented the necessity for this infinite regress so you invent the concept of god(s) to provide an end point: "X is explained by the gods choosing to do it that way". Of course, I can ask where the gods came from or why they chose to do it that way so you haven't really provided an explanation at all. You have just provided an excuse to stop asking questions. Because you just made an assertion with no evidence or logical support.

I have done a few courses through Coursera (https://www.coursera.org) from, for example, the University of Leiden and the Ohio State University. It works well. But needs a certain amount of discipline to keep up with the course work (I was also working full time when I did these). There is also the Open University who now offer some of there courses free (http://www.open.edu/openlearn/free-courses). I started studying towards a degree with them but had to stop when they put their prices up because they lost government funding. There are several other providers of online courses, but I haven't used them so can't comment. You could start a thread to ask about it.

I agree. They shouldn't be. Like music and reason shouldn't be enemies. Because they are completely separate things. The problem comes when people insist that their faith means that reason must be wrong (e.g. Creationists etc).

Only in that an (isolated) black hole would have to be much smaller then to be able to lose mass by Hawking radiation faster than it gained mass from the CMB.

You are multiplying by an arbitrary factor. You could multiply by 1 or divide by a million. It would be equally meaningless. Then why are you using degrees? What is "decimal cycle"? Do you mean gradian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradian It looks like someone needs to. And it isn't going to be you. There are lots of free online courses provided by good universities, etc. I doubt it. The courses are quite demanding. You might pretend to be bored as an excuse to avoid doing some hard work and learning, though. You might also have to learn to write like a grown up.

theta theta/10º theta/45º theta/180º etc. I don't think you are going to get an 'aha moment' from looking at things wrongly, which is what you always do. Radians have nothing to do with astronomy. It is a natural unit, based on the value of pi. There is nothing redundant about it; it has exactly the same amount of information as using the arbitrary (man-made) units of degrees. No. It is just more of your ignorant nonsense. Written in your usual infantile way. Why not take a year or two out to do an introductory course in mathematics? And then one on communication skills. Then you might be able to contribute something sensible to the forum.

Actually, filing a patent is relatively cheap. If your only objective is to prevent anyone else getting a patent, then filing your own application and then abandoning it is a good way of putting the prior art on record.

Really? What theoretical or evidential basis is there for this claim? All attempts so far to explain dark energy in terms of modified gravity or extra forces have not worked. So obviously not "easy". Can you provide a reference to any of these "many" theories?

If the information is public then you cannot file a patent. There is no such thing as an international patent.

Yes. Publicising the information will stop someone else patenting the idea. They may still be able to get a patent if they can achieve the same thing in a different way. I think that only applies (applied?) if the inventor disclosed it.

Remember that when the first stars formed there would have been no heavier elements to form planets asteroids, etc. The absence of those elements is the reason why the first stars are so large and short-lived (for reasons I don't really understand...)

The only "constants of space" I know of are the permittivity of free space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity) and the permeability of free space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability).

You seem to be calculating the difference between the sine of an angle and a distance along a chord where that angle intersects. With some random multiplicative factors thrown in. This is clearly mumbo-jumbo. Not even numerology. Nonsense. This has nothing to do with non-Euclidean geometry. And the "big problem" only exists in your fevered imagination. Maybe you should do a course in it. I doubt anyone cares about that.

OK. After a bit of searching, I found the definition here: https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?bgspu|search_for=Newtonian I don’t know what the significance of that value is or what it is used for. The nearest thing I can find is the gravitational coupling constant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_coupling_constant I can’t see any obvious connection to Planck-scale particles or energy in space. I thought it was interesting, which is why I asked for more information.