You are right, the paths are more complex than just on a sphere, we build
it up as an addition of such paths.
On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 8:00 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> Stefan
>
> There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a
> sphere except for one axes angular motion
The point is that as you shrink it energy density will increase and I
simply assume there is a limit for how much density space can take. I alsa
suggest that this limit is consistent with lorentz transformations as it
would not make sense if this depends on which frame the observer has. This
also
Stefan
There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a
sphere except for one axes angular motion (w instead of v)
J.W.
On 06.05.2023 15:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the
connection between EM and QM now
The man who help start OpenAI but exited due to fear of AI plans his new AI.
https://www.engadget.com/elon-musk-says-he-wants-to-start-truthgpt-to-rival-openai-and-google-014938539.html
Also the potential is not correct...
If you do it quark like 2/3 2/3 -1/3 you will get 2*(2/9) - 4/9 = 0!
because 2/3 are repulsive...
You should always write down all details of what you exactly name how
and what e.g. potential means.
The Dirac equation is plain nonsense as the e/p
I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the connection
between EM and QM now take this link and explain Aspects experiment... How
come we can define a normal 2000 century model and end up with no
determinism and whatnot strangities.
The vendor changed the control parameters for the Chatbot (
https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=2988). When you ask a question, it
now takes longer to respond. I think it often takes about 30 seconds. It is
worth the delay, because it is improved in various ways. It does a deeper
search. I
I added a new name for this paper a new link I have different names on this
one,
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GChNtVtTgvQzF4jSu1tSjCx5ub9lu4RD/view?usp=share_link
On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 9:05 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> Also the potential is not correct...
>
> If you do it quark like 2/3
You may have a point but I updated the paper and I hope that it does not
have this property now. The last update was at 20:34 CET
On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 9:05 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> Also the potential is not correct...
>
> If you do it quark like 2/3 2/3 -1/3 you will get 2*(2/9) - 4/9 = 0!
9 matches
Mail list logo