RayDog

There are two ways to prove that something does not exist prior to proceeding to the step of looking at observations and evidence. 1. The thing is known to be fictional 2. The thing is a logical impossibility. Non-physical objects fail both tests.

So you are saying non-physical objects are supernatural disregarding that there is no such thing as a non-physical object.

Not being my field I was curious which states are going to be most impacted by tariffs on soybeans, corn, sorghum, pork and beef so I looked up the top 10 producing states of each. I highlighted the ones in the top three. There aren't many surprises, but it is big chunk of the country to piss off. I wonder how this strategy will work for the Rebublicans. Illinois - Soybean(1), Corn(2), Sorghum, Pork Iowa - Soybean(2), Corn(1), Pork(1), Beef Texas - Beef (1), Sorghum (2) Minnesota - Soybean(3), Corn, Pork(3) Missouri - Soybean, Corn, Sorghum, Pork, Beef(3) Kansas - Corn, Sorghum(1), Pork, Beef Nebraska - Corn(3), Sorghum, Pork, Beef South Dakota - Soybean, Corn, Sorghum, Beef Oklahoma - Sorghum, Pork, Beef(2) North Carolina - Pork(2) Colorado - Sorghum(3) Ohio - Soybean, Corn, Pork Colorado - Sorghum(3) North Dakota - Soybean, Beef Indiana - Soybean, Corn, Arkansas - Soybean Wisconsin - Corn New Mexico - Sorghum Louisiana - Sorghum Montana - Beef Kentucky - Beef

These were check sources with tiny amounts of radioactivity used to response check radiation detectors. The cesium ones are very common and anybody could buy one. The plutonium ones are less common but not unusual at universities. They are about as dangerous as a smoke detector.

I was expecting more from Kasich. He had a chance to come off as being far more presidential than Trump and instead sounded like someone who is still hedging his bets.

I still imagine that Trump had the idea in his pea brain that he would get a positive bump in his approval rating from the Putin summit that would help the Republicans at midterms. Oops. I can't imagine his approval rating staying above 40% in coming weeks.

Numbers arise within a physical brain. They are not supernatural.

So instead we have tyranny by the common clay of the new west.

Rather than abandoning the electoral college I think we could see large states splitting in the way California is considering.

I took a stab at looking at the demographics for about 10 years out which assumes states with substantial growth like AZ, GA, TX, and NC continuing to swing toward likely democratic. I also estimated the electoral college changes for 2024 assuming DC and PR get added as states in 2021 as I expect they will. It is important to note that the Democrats still have a solid base of small states, so I don't see an angry old white man backlash taking the senate once DC and PR are states. I left some states in play as toss-ups, but that depends a lot on what the Republicans do to capture those states as I could see several of them being leaning or likely Democratic. Smaller Democratic States (11 states with 56 electoral votes) DC = 3 DE = 3 VT = 3 HI = 3 RI = 4 (-1) 3 NM = 5 NV = 6 PR = 6 CT = 7 OR = 7 MD = 10 Larger (>10 electoral votes) Democratic States (11 states with 233 electoral votes) CA = 55 (-1) 54 TX = 38 (+2) 40 NY = 29 (-1) 28 IL = 20 (-2) 18 GA = 16 NC = 15 (+1) 16 NJ = 14 VA = 13 WA = 12 MA = 11 AZ = 11 Tossup (10 states with 125 electoral votes) FL = 29 (+2) 31 PA = 20 (-1) 19 OH = 18 (-1) 17 MI = 16 (-1) 15 WI = 10 CO = 9 (+1) 10 MN = 10 (-1) 9 IA = 6 NH = 4 ME = 4 Republican (20 states with 124 electoral votes) IN = 11 TN = 11 MO = 10 SC = 9 AL = 9 (-1) 8 KY = 8 LA = 8 OK = 7 UT = 6 KS = 6 AR = 6 MS = 6 NE = 5 WV = 5 (-1) 4 ID = 4 MT = 3 ND = 3 SD = 3 WY = 3 AK = 3

Am I the only one that thinks that if you saw Kavanaugh in Texas you would guess he is an aggy and if he was in a defendants chair in court you would guess he was up on child porn charges?

I don't know. I see stuff like that from Democrats all the time. Of course the are terrified of Trump's policies so being terrified is more understandable.

Sometimes the smallest bird has the sweetest song.

I have not heard the pundits discussing that since the GRU agents indicted were all officers, there were dozens of hackers under their command who were not indicted. Orr perhaps there are sealed indictments against them and they are on travel lists.

Beto is on pace to bring in over $40 million dollars during his senate campaign, since he is already over $23 million and should hit $37 million around the end of September. I decided to look at recent spending history in senate races to see how that compares and I only found one candidate who spent more, and that was Linda McMahon. But she was spending over $40 million of her own money both times in a losing effort. My search was not exhaustive, so perhaps Beto is not on a record pace for a candidate who is not self-funded but he is up there. I am curious how much the ftedcruz PAC has brought in, but have not seen a report yet.

As the former state manager of radioactive material licensing i can tell you his claim is bullshit.

Based on a simple linear extrapolation, which may seriously underestimate things, Beto should expect around $14 million from 300,000 donations in the third quarter. He also regularly draws more than 1000 people to his events, and in larger population areas those should continue to grow to who knows how many. I have never seen of heard of anything like this in my life in a statewide race in a state as large as Texas. Cruz should be concerned, but I hope Texas republicans keep thinking this election is business as usual for them.

In response to your continued support of magical action at a distance theories I will let Sir Isaac Newton respond as he has you pegged. "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty for thinking, can ever fall into it." I am happy to hear that you will no longer be making personal attacks on me when you cannot defend your irrational positions that are relevant to the actual thread of discussion. The decision to decide whether an attractive force is considered negative or positive is purely arbitrary and has nothing to do with the underlying mathematics. If it were up to me I would have made the opposite choice with attraction being positive and repulsion negative, but it was not up to me and is too late to change at this point. Lastly, physics is the science of understanding interactions between physical matter and it requires that physicists devise logical physical models that match observations. A theory is a failure without successful physical models.

The Casimir effect is nothing but a subset of van der Waals forces. Van der Waals forces are a well established part of electromagnetic theory. The distance between charges in electric dipoles varies and oscillates in the presence of other dipoles. I am not misinterpreting anything. Van der Waals forces exist and must be accounted for at all times. Your argument is akin to saying that both the strong force and van der Waals forces exist and happen to have the same magnitude and achieve the same effect simultaneously. My point is that only one of those forces is necessary to explain nuclear forces. Of the two possibilities, the van der Waals forces of standard electromagnetic theory is the simplest and it is impossible for them to not exist. I consider strong force theory to be unnecessarily redundant.

I am not worried that my work won't pass peer review as it is based on standard model quantum field theory, sound logic and well-known physics relationships. I consider physics to be the single greatest puzzle to solve of all the puzzles faced by humanity. I am rather happy to not be taken very seriously at this point because it allows me to continue to extend my knowledge and understanding, adding new and more scientific solutions to parts of the puzzle, while other physicists are mostly going in wrong directions. I am enjoying my 20 year head start on most of the physics community. Once my work gets discovered by the mainstream, I will lose my advantage. I hope to complete my research and related book on particle theory as well as a paper on gravitation before focusing on promoting my work more seriously. A couple things about publication. Most physics papers are never published in peer reviewed journals, so I am not in an unusual position. Of those papers that do get published in most journals (not Nature or Science) the typical number of reads is 4 or 5, the editor, 2 peer reviewers and 1 or 2 journal readers. My papers get hundreds of reads, so I am actually getting more exposure using the venues I am using than I might with a closed peer reviewed journal.

I found that Coulomb's constant was mistyped in my spreadsheet, so thanks for finding the error. That means that the Casimir effect is about 10% stronger based on this Casimir force approximation than I included in the paper. This will give me a good reason to update the paper. As I said before, the minus sign in the front of the equation indicates that the force is attractive. The minus sign was not due to the integration, but was added after the fact. The Casimir force between two spheres is attractive not repulsive, so that is not an error. In the update I will probably delete the force equation since you are not the only person confused by it.

Kiev was the original capital of the Kingdom if Rus, so perhaps Putin should cede control of Russia to Ukraine.

Axiom only pointed out flaws in his own understanding and reading comprehension, not flaws in the paper.

Your insistence that I compute all cases is a strawman argument that amounts to a denial of the existence of the Casimir effect. Perhaps it would be helpful if you consider that much of the force pushing protons together comes from the van der Waals forces inside the protons and neutrons. That is what happens when you consider the standard Casmir force between two spheres. Packing protons and neutrons together does not diminish the force between them since it arises from inside them. The integration in the paper is only valid for the case where the distance L is equal to the radius a, as the equation is difficult to integrate more generally. So you must combine the two terms, integrate, and then separate them. I did this just to illustrate what the energy equation looks like in an ideal case even though it is only valid at one point. It does not effect the results in any respects since that equation was not used in the calculations. I calculated the energy for each distance and then converted it to force point-by-point when calculating the Casimir effect results used in the table. Note that the minus sign indicates that the force is attractive. It has nothing to do with the integration. We seem to be on the same page finally on how the Coulomb force is calculated. I did the calculations in Excel, so feel confident in them. I also had them verified by someone I trust a lot more than you. Perhaps there are rounding errors, but even so calling out rounding errors is another strawman. Pointing to my other work on mechanical forces is yet another strawman argument with regard to this paper. I will say however that where there is a force there is an acceleration (F=ma), which is true for any force. Logically if a force exists there must be a physical cause responsible for the acceleration. Any theory that fails to provide a physical cause for acceleration is at best incomplete and at worse invalid. Do you follow that? If not, just stop here until you figure it out. General Relativity (GR) theory, for example, does not include a physical cause of acceleration. If we take the two body case and place two bodies in space at some distance apart and have them stationary to begin with, GR theory does not explain how they accelerate, even less provide a physical explanation for the acceleration. Newtonian gravitational theory does not include an explanation for acceleration either. Either theory is incomplete or possibly completely wrong due to this deficiency. In the best case scenario the underlying physical cause of acceleration must be known before proceeding with developing the remainder of the theory. If we look at standard electromagnetic (EM) theory. If you take two magnets and orient them such that they push apart and use one to push the other, the theory does not explain the cause of acceleration of the second magnet. It does not explain the physical cause of acceleration either when two magnets are attracted and come together, yet they certainly do come together. Electrostatic theory also does not explain the physical cause of acceleration when two charges are attracted or repelled. Thus electromagnetic theory is incomplete. If we consider the standard model strong force, there is no physical explanation for the acceleration between nucleons. As with the prior two examples being able to compute the acceleration is not the same thing as understanding the underlying physical mechanism responsible for the acceleration. If we consider mechanical forces when there is no physical contact (no electron degeneracy pressure), there is no physical explanation for acceleration. This is mostly evident with rotating objects like gyroscopes that can be accelerated without there being physical contact with another object in a way that would cause acceleration in the direction we observe. As above, mechanical force theory is incomplete and missing the most important part. Being able to compute a result is not the same thing as explaining what is physically happening. There is only one accepted theory in standard model physics that does incorporate a physical explanation for acceleration when two objects are not in contact. That theory is the Casimir effect. It turns out that we do not need a second theory, as the van der Waals forces that underly the Casimir effect underly all of standard model quantum field theory. Here is a paper I wrote about that where I develop a general Casimir theory with respect to EM forces. http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research Papers-Mechanics / Electrodynamics/Download/7129

The Texas Tribune article says that Cruz raised $4 million over the same period and has $10 million on hand to Beto's $14 million.