Klaynos

That doesn't appear to answer my question or it's not consistent with your answer finding geostationary altitude.

Right, I was using M' as aX = bX where X is not the same quantity on both sides of the equations is frankly stupid. So TiM where M is he molar mass and Ti contains mass information? That must mean that Ti is body dependent and therefore not a constant. Your explanation is not clear to me. Where you calculated the geostationary height you just substituted Ti for G and a different value of M, let's call them M-1 and M-2. Let me ask my question again. Is GM-1 = TiM-2? Where G is the gravitational constant, M-1 is mass, Ti is your constant and M-2 is your modified mass?

To add macos is bsd and android uses the Linux kernel.

My understanding is that you could do it whenever you hear barking even during the day to try and train them. The advantage of a dog whistle is that it's annoying as hell to dogs but humans can't hear it. On a related note after my PhD I can't sleep without listening to a podcast or radio. I started doing it as a distraction from thinking constantly about research and just not sleeping. Got to pick the right show, something with short sections that you don't get invested in.

If the dogs are close you can try training them using a dog whistle. Blow it hard whenever you hear the barking. Wikihow suggests this should work, but I've not tried it.

Would I be correct in saying that in all cases you think that GM = TiM' Where G is the gravitational constant, M is mass, Ti is your constant and M' is your modified mass?

I block the ads on my DNS server so no loading of them ever (downside is I can't allow from sites I'd like to support ads from) and I've experienced the same slow downs.

! Moderator Note Last time you were asked to show how your idea could predict the orbit of geostationary orbits. That thread was closed due to your lack of engagement. Can you please start with the above challenge and then address the other points in that thread. Failure to do so will result in the closure of this thread and you not being allowed to reintroduce the topic.

Glad you've read the rules you agreed to on registering. If you feel a post is breaking the rules please report it.

For anyone who is interested these links and their references are worth reading. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/08/02/seven-years-after-nature-pilot-study-compares-wikipedia-favorably-to-other-encyclopedias-in-three-languages/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia Scherado, adding people to ignore doesn't make for a very good discussion. Everyone, could we all get back to the topic?

In the UK electronic devices must not generate too much noise (there are very long technical documents on this). This is measured and tested for. Failure to comply will result in fines. 50hz is less restricted as mains noise is difficult to avoid so people tend to take measures to work on this. Some frequencies in your band it is entirely illegal to transmit on by international agreement. No matter your intent or power. I know for a fact people are found doing this without their knowledge and fined. If your intent was to broadcast (even just the near field) the punishment would be substantially more. In the UK. Operating an RF jammer is illegal. Operating a device that transmits intentionally or above a very low level unintentionally across your band is illegal. Operating a spark gap is explicitly illegal. Most jurisdictions are likely to be similar. Given this I suggest reading rule 2.3 as this is moving close to the mark.

! Moderator Note Off topic posts hidden. Do not reply to this modnote. Get back to the topic.

I think a good first step for thinking about photons is to stop thinking of waves and particles. Photons (and electrons etc...) are not classical particles nor waves. They are something difference. Our normal experiences do not observe things like that so we don't really have words or annologies that work. Therefore we have to say things like; photons have wavelike and particlelike properties. As an aside, energy is a property of stuff not something itself.

I'd go farther. Lose the images of a particle and wave. They're just nice description words to make people feel happier about relating back to something they can see and understand. What we are dealing with is something different that has both wave-like and particle-like properties but is not one nor t'other.

In the UK they're mostly traffic cameras. Sometimes they will do numberplate recognition looking for cars without insurance and/or tax.

You can have objects that are bigger than the collapse mass but don't. Some stars fall into this category, the radiation pressure keeps them from collapse. On the question in the op, it'll turn into an accretion disk and slowly merge with the the black hole. The exact details will depend on what it is and how they are moving relative to each other.

! Moderator Note Op can't keep on topic. So I'm going to close this. Please do try harder. As this isn't closed due to the content you may reopen another thread but start it with showing where Maxwell's equations are wrong. As you stated c is not invariant then they must be wrong. Show it mathematically.

I think he was being serious. A large part of what they do could be automated. But the putting the patient at ease is harder. But then you don't need to be as qualified to do that so I think his answer stands.

Mike, you're probably getting negative reputation for the same reasons I suggested earlier in this thread. Repeating the same stuff, no evidence and mostly (although I see you've made a bit more of an effort on this one in one or two posts) ignoring the responses of others.

Which in itself is not new.

I'm just going to quote the reply from the last time Mike posted the same stuff. Mike, have you noticed the frustration in people's replies? Are you reading the replies or just carrying on posting what you want?

It's as if none of the previous posts in this thread (or any of his others) have been read by Mike.

There is no evidence for Adam. The fact that there was civilisation in the middle East several thousand years ago is no more evidence for God or Adam as Ignis evidence for piskies. It's not evidence it's wishful thinking.

Assertions assertions assertions. There's no evidence here. If this is all you have then how could you consider this evidence. You have an interpretation of a story book. Next you'll be citing Harry potter as evidence for wizards. This is lunacy. Why are you on a science site Mike, if all you want is belief, hope and wishful thinking I'd suggest a religious forum.

Great, a signature. Where? Something that can't just be explained by the physical laws of nature.