a much more revelatory exercise would be to compare these derived values with measured values, then construct testable hypotheses regarding disparities.
The model shows that the surface and volume of an object scale with mass such that electrostatic and gravitational acceleration can be explained through this scaling relationship. This is considered a geometric or structural cost:
C_s ~ m^(1/3) + m^(-2/3)
In terms of intrinsic acceleration, surface and volume scale with mass as:
a_i ~ m^(1/3) + m^(-5/3)
This relationship holds for any object with charge ≠ 0 across electrostatic and gravitational regimes, so the free fall principle is strictly recovered only for mathematically neutral objects.
This allows drawing an intrinsic acceleration curve for objects with homogeneous density, and the minimum point of this curve is identified at:
m_ϕ ≈ 4.157 × 10^−9 kg
If the surface and volume of a not strictly neutral object determine its dynamic behavior, this would theoretically allow measuring m_ϕ with precision and deriving G without the historical dependence on the Planck mass. In this sense, it is a falsifiable proposal.
The geometric logic of the model allows establishing a geometric or informational saturation limit that eliminates GR singularities. At the same time, fundamental particles are not treated as dimensionless points but as polyhedral objects, which also eliminates the quantum gravity problem. The concept of infinity is considered, within the model, physically implausible.
From here, the model allows making the derivations included in this post, which I have not presented categorically, but as a proposal that seems at least statistically very unlikely to be achieved by chance.
The model does not question the precision of the Standard Model but postulates that the particle zoo represents not a collection of fundamental building blocks, but the result of proton fragmentation into purely geometric entities. The fact that these entities are not observed spontaneously in nature, but only as a consequence of forced interactions, seems to support this idea.
to lose the features that define it as a subunit of tissue.
in this case warts, or tumour cells may be transplanted during surgery, to a person that has nicked themselves with a scalpel or other such instrument, it is not impossible for a technician to have this happen while preparing a biopsy.
the way a virus promotes cancer is by inserting, into genetic locus [address] that is close enough to the start of an "oncogene" that cancer results.
Diagnostic dilemma: A surgeon accidentally transplanted a tumor into his
own hand
you seem to be entirely missing the point, you are in a frame expecting posts to conform to a ridgid set of definitions, this post has a purpose outside of that frame, as a little bird might tell you.
Tell HN : “Paramount’s content protection team is in the process of routine take down orders for the unaired and unauthorized segment,” a CBS spokesperson said Tuesday via email.
there is a moral stance as the only real barrier to most dreadful perversions of the human reproductive functions. The emergence, sanctioned or not, of synthetic, engineered humans requires address.
I recapped a C64C I bought second hand recently, using premium Japanese 105C capacitors off the shelf on akihabara, minus the huge axial one I ordered a modern, extremely durable replacement for.
I tested every cap I removed, all of them nichicons from the mid 80s. They all measured to spec.
So it was kinda pointless at the end. Sure, it is going to be good for a few more decades, alongside the 1571 Ultimate II-L.
(yes, I replaced the original PSU. I bought separate modern, safe 9vac and 5vdc PSUs and an adapter to join them into the C64 power connector)
Fwiw, the c64 is pretty robust, if you don't use the original power supplies.
I'm surprised that people find this to be an example of clickbait. If I cared about views, I'd imagine an honest title like - "I turned my c64 into a digital fireplace" - would have probably been more appealing, no?
You’re surprised that people find a title of “Help! My c64 caught on fire!” to be clickbait in a case where your c64 did not catch on fire and you don’t need help?!
It’s an interesting article, but the title is a textbook example of clickbait and I’m surprised that you’re surprised.
reply