Strange

Please provide the predictions made by your model which are different from standard physics and the corresponding experimental results.

Please provide some evidence that the timing of biological functions scale by the same amount that a pendulum does. Its not a theory. You have no model and no data. You are just making stuff up.

If it isn't the same then it isn't time dilation. Does it scale the same way that a pendulum does? In short, you are substituting some nice-sounding images for science.

Does that scale in the same way as a pendulum? Does it change the way a child perceives time?

I don't think there is an easy answer (except by looking at them). The mathematics and psychology of colour perception are quite complex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision#Mathematics_of_color_perception

As he can use the same clock that we do, he would notice. You also assume that biological processes will speed up when scaled in the same way that a pendulum does. I see no reason to think that is true. This is not time dilation. You may be trying to describe some other effect (that may or may not exist) but it isn't time dilation.

The period of a [ideal] pendulum is not affected by the mass. But if you scale the pendulum then the mass will be scaled anyway. We know smaller pendulums swing faster. THIS IS NOT TIME DILATION.

1. They appear to be calculated, not measured. 2. Can you describe how the measurements were made. 3. You have already said that these numbers are the same as standard physics; therefore they cannot be used to test your model. 4. Please provide the predictions made by your mode which are different from standard physics and the corresponding experimental results. Thanks you.

Everyone has the same limit in the first day. It is to protect against spam, not saying that your posts are spam. I'm sure one more day will not hurt. Have you built a successful generator using your new physics? Why don't you read the rules of the forum. It might not be if you removed all the waffle and repetition. All you need to show is: The predictions of standard physics The predictions of your new equation Results from experimental measurements Then we can see which model best matches the data. (I skimmed through your web page and couldn't see any experimental results.)

You think there isn't already interdisciplinary research going on? Brain scientists untie; you have nothing to lose but your minds

The feel solid. (In other words, they are what make things around us feel solid.)

So, you are asking if the eye can perceive any difference between a particular shade of yellow produced by a monochromatic source and the same yellow produced by two (or more) frequencies? The trouble is, as far as I can see, is that the only way of defining the "same" yellow by combining multiple frequencies is by how it looks. In which case, by definition, they will look the same. Colour is a function of perception not something that can be defined independently of how we see it. In general, you can produce the same effect from a single frequency (that partially stimulates two sets of photoreceptors whose frequency responses overlap) as you can with two different frequencies that each stimulate one set of photoreceptors. By adjusting the frequencies and intensities, you can make it match "exactly" (as reported by the person viewing it) the same. (You might want to look up "qualia" in an introductory philosophy text.)

It says that in the article.

Like these: https://www.nature.com/nrn/about/conferences Or these: http://www.abcam.com/neuroscience/neuroscience-conference-and-events-calendar Well, I'll certainly sleep better knowing you are on this.

Yes, thank you. Can you show how well the predictions of your new equation match experiment?

Only the second one. See the post above. Then I'm not sure whey you mentioned it. Then please show how the predictions of your new equation for energy match with experiment. For example, please show the prediction of the old ("wrong") equation, the prediction of your equation and the experimental results. Then we can see which equation best matches the evidence. (A brief description of how you make the measurements would be useful too.) Thank you.

We don't know if those things are "real" or just a good model that works. He seems to be saying that if you could get rid of the electrons, we would fit in a particle of dust. But most of the atom isn't empty space, it is electrons (distributed throughout that space). You can only view the atom as largely empty if you use the old Bohr model of the atom, which we know is wrong.

So you seem to have a more complicated way of reaching the same result. That doesn't seem very useful. Unless your model can produce a different prediction that standard physics, then it is just standard physics. So, what predictions does your model make that are different from standard physics? How do measurements compare between your model and standard physics?

Apparently, it's worse than that: "the whole contents had escaped except for one thing that lay at the bottom – usually translated as Hope, though it could also have the pessimistic meaning of "deceptive expectation".[4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora's_box Sorry. Back on topic now. I really hope you are not from the Southern States ... But you're welcome. (Thanks for prompting me to find how I could hide all that dreck as well.)

Nothing to do with me. Try reporting one of the posts under your old account to the moderators to find out (click the Report Post link at the top of the post). Which of these are measured? For example, your D column (total displacement per this second) is different from that predicted by standard physics. So, you need to measure the displacement after each second and compare it with your equation. Have you done this?

The box is empty. There used to be little bit of Hope but it has run out now. I hadn't looked at trying to do this with the new forum. It is not as obvious as it used to be, but it is still there. Under the Activity tab at the top of the page (this is on the desktop view; haven't tried it in the mobile view) click on My Activity Streams and select Create New Stream. You can then select they types of things you want to see (content, unread, etc). Under Content Types select Topics. A little gear icon and down arrow appears next to it. Click on that and you can choose which subfora you want to see in the feed. Save this feed (give it a name first) and then you will see, by the name at the top, three little icons (Edit, Delete and Tick mark). The last sets this as the default feed and it will replace the default "Unread Items" at the top right of the page.

You know how science works? You create a model (eg your new equation) then you test the predictions of that model against experiment to see if they match and if they are better than other models. Have you done that? You said you have experimental evidence. Can we see it, and a description of how you made the measurements. Thank you.

Can you explain how you measured these? Ideally you would show a table with the predictions of the old equation, those of your equation and the measured values so we can see which equation best matches the measurements. Can you do that? You read the rules when you joined, no?

No. And where is the experimental evidence that this is correct? The current equation works, i.e. matches the experimental results, so it is hard to see how yours can too. Please show the evidence for this.

As various people use the word god for many different things so it seems there is almost no limit to what it can mean. Perhaps that’s the problem with a word that doesn’t have an objective referent.