Recent content by nataliaeggers

Thanks.

I appreciate everyone taking the time to respond, but I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding about what I’m asking. When mfb says “not sure what Newton III has to do with energy,” this reveals exactly the conceptual gap I’m trying to address. Newton’s third law isn’t just about forces...

Mathematical tautology means that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics can accommodate anything through post hoc rationalization i.e., it doesn’t prohibit any outcome (i.e., anything is impossible, anything can only be unlikely), so it can’t be falsified (by Popper’s terms), so it’s pseudoscience…

If 2D magnetism (flat magnets, QM magnetism) exhibits perfect symmetry, following Maxwell’s equations, but 3D magnetism transforms most repulsive interactions by torque into attraction, with spherical bodies being impossible to repel, if Modern Physics says “the fact that 3D magnetism repulsion...

If “E=mc²”, where “E” is energy, if “W=delta-E”, if a change in gravitational potential energy produces work transforming into kinetic energy, if a change in kinetic energy produces work, if a difference in electrical potential is converted into a change in energy or work, if, in the end...

I’m getting to understand the forum and I’m sorry if I have misused somehow, but I see that getting peer reviewed is a common problem faced especially by “outsider”. If peers won’t open your paper, and, consequently, won’t review it, so, how (or where) is it possible to find physicist to review...

Hi. I’m studying GR on my own. Perhaps we could talk privately? I’ll sent you a DM.

Thanks for your time. Since the work is purely empirical based, it would be simple for any PhD to disprove it if it is false. The paper puts some real questions on established scientific theories. For you it most certainly would be fairly easy to understand, replicate or refute. This may...

Thanks again. I’m here exactly in order to find guidance. I’m not a “real” doctor (I’m a medical doctor though), so I need even more peer-review from physicists doctors. Where else could I find peers to review than here?

Sure. Thanks for asking. I have empirical evidence that contradicts established scientific theories. It’s all experiments anyone can replicate easily to verify if it is a “black swan” from Popper’s perspective. It’s not speculative, it’s purely empirical — it’s something that should trigger...

I appreciate your time, however, that’s exactly what the paper is about: not new theory, but empirical confrontation to established theories.

Why? He asked for time of study, then, why responding it with the actual time the study took to be developed is a “red flag”? I did not even posted no link nor anything about it yet. It’s not a new theory per se, it’s empirical observation that may contradict established theories (the black swan...

The link is not working. I even tried to remove the duplicate link but it also did not work. However, by the “won’t look new theory”, does it imply “we won’t see empirical refutation of established theories” as well? Thank you for your time.

So would it be ok if I show you a paper that is entirely empirical based, which is the result of more than 5 years of study? As far as I could understand, empirical observations match your saying as a quote: “fully compatible with the existing observations of the real world.”

I understand that academics have a hard time in overcoming paradigms, but when my question at the Reddit sub AskPhysics “is it possible that General Relativity could not be 100% perfect?” is flagged for being “sensationalists”, then, something is fundamentally wrong about how scientists treat...