1

New Theories / Re: Gravitoelectroweak Hypothesis?

« Last post by Origin on Today at 01:45:40 »

Or you're too stupid to understand the words and so revert to discrimination and gaslighting.

Pointing out that you have no clue what you are talking about is not discrimination.

2

New Theories / Re: Gravitoelectroweak Hypothesis?

« Last post by Kryptid on Today at 00:53:34 »

Let's not hurl insults.

Can you tell me how unlikely it is?

The distance factor in the tunneling probability equation is actual an exponent, so increases in length scale massively decrease tunneling odds: https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_University_Physics_(OpenStax)/University_Physics_III_-_Optics_and_Modern_Physics_(OpenStax)/07%3A_Quantum_Mechanics/7.07%3A_Quantum_Tunneling_of_Particles_through_Potential_Barriers#:~:text=L%3De24%CF%80,it%20is%20to%20tunnel%20through.

That website does some example calculations. For barrier of 1 nanometer, the calculated probability for the low energy electron is 1.7% x 10^-4. When that barrier distance is increased to 5 nanometers, the probability drops drastically to 2.1% x 10^-36. If I plug a micrometer distance into the equation (1,000 nanometers), then the probability I get drops profoundly to 1.792% x 10^-7,709. There very probably has never been such an unlikely event to occur in the history of the visible Universe. That's just a micrometer. Millions of kilometers is just not feasible.

3

New Theories / Re: Gravitoelectroweak Hypothesis?

« Last post by samcottle on Yesterday at 23:37:42 »

This is nothing but word salad.

I did get a kick out of equations 1 & 2.  Mathematical equations generally are mathematical equations not a paragraph of text.

Word salad. Or you're too stupid to understand the words and so revert to discrimination and gaslighting.

4

New Theories / Re: Gravitoelectroweak Hypothesis?

« Last post by Bored chemist on Yesterday at 23:20:13 »

Can you tell me how unlikely it is?

Practically impossible.
Could it happen once... yes.
Twice... maybe.
Often enough to be a significant factor in how the universe works,,, no.

5

New Theories / Re: Gravitoelectroweak Hypothesis?

« Last post by samcottle on Yesterday at 23:19:48 »

The test of a hypothesis is the accuracy of its predictions. I don't see any.

I stated in the abstract that this hypothesis predicts that the g-factor of the muon would accord with the predictions of the standard model in microgravity. I predicted a while ago that the deviations from the standard model predictions are accounted for due to the experiments being carried out in Earth's gravity well and that the observed differences in the g-factor between locations can be accounted for considering the differing heights above sea level at the locations where the experiments were carried out (i.e. at Fermilab versus the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory).

6

New Theories / Re: Gravitoelectroweak Hypothesis?

« Last post by samcottle on Yesterday at 23:15:16 »

The electron would tunnel from one atom, at a distance separate from the atom containing the proton, and exchange the W- for a W+ leading the two atoms (to which the foreign electron and local proton belong) moving closer together.

The probability of an electron tunneling over astronomical distances is absurdly unlikely, so that doesn't make for a good explanation for how planets can stay in orbit around a star.

Can you tell me how unlikely it is? It's unlikely in any case that the electron would tunnel beyond the Van der Waals radius, though (contrary to what you might think) the unlikelihood of something happening doesn't mean that it never happens; it means that it happens with regularity only not very often. If you then take into consideration the unfathomable numbers of electrons in say this galaxy then you'd get a clearer picture of how the probabilities and unlikelihood of events happening are somewhat absorbed under those very large numbers. Also read Finster's papers on causal fermion systems, they are very enlightening (as is a good book on LQG), and not all that far away from what I've proposed here. Try to post something more helpful next time (I have, of course, thought about this). I'm sorry you people failed to understand something, but there's no reason I ought to have to tolerate gaslighting and abuse, like some of the comments here.

7

Just Chat! / Re: If Religion Wants To Survive...

« Last post by Zer0 on Yesterday at 22:44:06 »

Christianity - Everything's a sin and all sins forgiven.

Not Everything's a Sin.
Factually Inaccurate.
&
Not All Sins are Forgiven.
Perdition...Holy Ghost...Ring a Bell?

8

Just Chat! / Re: If Religion Wants To Survive...

« Last post by Zer0 on Yesterday at 22:37:29 »

But you know you, it does give some people meaning in their life. It makes them moral, which isn't bad. And it gives them a firm moral compass, which I've always admired.

Santa Claus story can make kids behave morally. But it's not wise to prevent them from mentally growing up to be adults.

Santa does Not control Maturity.
Most kids grow up, a few Don't.
Santa provides Sweet Dreams & fond memories...Not Nightmares!

In Life...Growing Old is a Compulsion, while Growing Up is mostly Optional.

9

Just Chat! / Re: Does black pudding actually taste good?

« Last post by Bored chemist on Yesterday at 22:31:04 »

Does black pudding actually taste good?
Yes.

10

Just Chat! / Re: If Religion Wants To Survive...

« Last post by Zer0 on Yesterday at 22:23:58 »

One common factor between drug abuse and religion is a failure of critical thinking.
Why worship the one who put the serpent in the garden?

Critical Thinking isn't the Only way towards The Pursuit of Happyness or Pleasure.

Perhaps the One is Worthy of Praise to atleast have Created the Garden.
& should be Blamed for providing FreeWill!