Recent content by Dale

As @A.T. mentioned, there will be a deviation even for a non-rotating primary due to the curvature. A rotating primary will produce additional deviation due to frame dragging.

The conclusion is yes. The above posts all explain why/how it can be done.

What is the intended purpose for using the Q factor?

Thanks, that is, a helpful way to follow up!

I am going based on your own description of your work. Have you described it accurately? If your description is accurate then my criticism is valid. According to your own description your work has a glaring deficit. Yes, if it is published in a professional scientific journal, then it is part of...

I want to emphasize this. IMO, this is the big problem with the OP's efforts. They are deliberately disconnecting their work from the current state of science. A claim of misuse of power is not at all credible with such a glaring hole in their work.

Such as https://info.arxiv.org/help/endorsement.html Where the arxiv policy says “You should not endorse the author if the author is unfamiliar with the basic facts of the field, or if the work is entirely disconnected with current work in the area.” Absolutely! Especially with foundational...

And you believe the rejection was misusing power? You are simply mistaken if you think you have foundational work with only 9 relevant references today. Hopefully your new friends can help you put your work into a modern context.

Yes, that is a good point. I have only experience with peer review publications. I have never put anything on arxiv, and I always check the publication information for papers that I read there. That said, if a paper came to me for actual peer review with no modern references, I would reject it...

First, that is assuming that rejecting a specific paper is a misuse of their power rather than the intended and proper use of their power. They should reject poor papers. In fact, too high of an acceptance rate is a hallmark of predatory publishers. Most professional scientific journals send...

The phenomenological fit is something that should be demonstrated in the publication! We cannot help you with any part of the development or analysis of your work prior to publication. Discussing any part of it, including the phenomenological fit, is not permitted here. This thread is closed...

Is this simpler way published in the professional scientific literature? If so, please post the reference. If not, please see our forum rules

I wouldn’t say that. I would say that it is a signal that classical point particles don’t exist. Doesn’t QED meet your criteria?

If the multimeter is accurate then it is accurately telling you that the breadboard is adding resistance. There really isn't anything to "try", that is just physics. Breadboards add resistance (and capacitance).

Well, either your multimeter is not good and is not reading the actual resistances, or your breadboard is adding some resistance. I don't know what else to tell you. There really isn't another possibility. If you have another multimeter then try the same measurements with a different device...