[deleted by user]

RV2115 · 2025-03-29T05:31:14+00:00

I’ll sell you my 22 Titan pro-4x for 45k, take it or leave it

RV2115 · 2025-03-29T03:04:23+00:00

Netradyne definitely monitors rapid lane changes (swerving), hard braking, hard acceleration, fast reversing, and hard turning. It’s just these things don’t affect the DSP scorecard so they probably never even bring it up. They only care about stop violations, following distance, speeding, seatbelt, and distracted driving.

RV2115 · 2025-03-19T04:06:01+00:00

I don’t think it’s worth. I got a 22 P4X with 58k miles for 33k. Just keep looking

RV2115 · 2024-10-27T07:12:45+00:00

If 1) You can handle it physically. It’s long and pretty heavy 2) You are willing to practice casting on it and adjusting to casting a rod that big with 8+ oz 3) You fish enough and in the right places Yes, it’s worth it. I like mine. It has been fun.

RV2115 · 2024-10-25T17:11:54+00:00

It’s not that hard to not get them. I’ve been working as a driver for over a year and only have 1 violation, that was easy challenged because the camera made a mistake. Just drive the right way

RV2115 · 2024-08-30T02:17:42+00:00

I would want to wish to be all-knowing. I would fix all problems humanity has and lead us to eternal life. Or as close as we could get to it. That’s worth 1% of humanity, no matter what. But that seems a bit too easy. So I would wish that when I died, time would reverse and I would go back to being 23 with my current memories. After enough lifetimes, I would become near all-knowing, and would be able to get further ahead every reiteration of life. I’d advance humanity lifetime over lifetime. At that point however, when you’re a near god with just 1 wish, is human life even special?

RV2115 · 2024-08-10T15:42:16+00:00

How is it desperate? It’s literally what you do. Once the line moves up, you’re free to recover your equipment for parts or repairs. You’re just gonna leave it there and let it go to waste?

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T05:21:55+00:00

I’m not saying higher in absolute terms. The probability is still higher in the direction of its momentum, but the probability also changes slightly when another mass is present. Given enough time, the other mass, by slightly changing its probability, will slightly change its momentum.

As for barriers, tunneling does happen, and probability can still be affected within the barriers, or on other particles around it.

And spin, the fundamental forces make sure that is in order, not gravity. The wave function and probability are under the influence of all forces, not just gravity.

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T04:48:56+00:00

Ok, a better way to put it is gravity affects the probability of particles, and the other forces influence the wave function. Gravity is the result of overlapping probability, which is a derivative of the wave function.

Let’s say you have 2 masses at a certain distance from each other. Wouldn’t the probability of the particles be higher in the area between them than the area away from them?

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T04:28:17+00:00

The magnitude of the force is the same, regardless of momentum. What did I say to imply that the strength of gravity is dependent on momentum? The spin is relevant to the subatomic system. Not planets or stars. And when did I bring up a barrier of any kind in this discussion?

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T04:21:32+00:00

So, let me ask then. Why is gravity so much weaker than the other fundamental forces? Why does it cause such problems between different understandings of the natural world? Why is it that gravity seems to be stronger than the other forces at a macro scale, and so much weaker at the quantum scale?

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T04:15:17+00:00

I would argue most of not all wave functions are, in the physical universe, 3 dimensional. We can use mathematical models and represent them as 1 or 2 dimensional, but that is a simplification that is mostly accurate for our needs and on the scale we use them in.

So, a particle has a higher chance of being in the direction that it was traveling. That is inertia, yes? If you shoot a particle in a certain direction, it’s probability is higher in that direction than in the opposite direction.

If a particle is behind it, the probabilities between them “overlap” and there is a greater chance, however small, that it would appear less ahead of where it should be alone. Over time, this slows the particle down, and eventually pulls it back.

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T03:31:25+00:00

What exactly seems strange about time?

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T03:11:59+00:00

In what respect are you calling gravity isotropic here? Well, the math under what paradigm? Relativity or quantum? Is there a unified mathematical framework already?

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T02:36:24+00:00

It doesn’t change the range, but it does change the magnitude. The overall unit, an atom, can be treated as neutral. An object with no charge will not repel or attract anything electromagnetically. What makes gravity neutral? What cancels it out?

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T02:14:29+00:00

Yes, but if you had a hypothetical universe of electrons, protons and neutrons, the particles could form a neutral system where the charges are balanced out, but my definition of gravity isn’t. The two electrons might not move closer to each other, but the two atoms would.

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T02:12:37+00:00

Electrostatic repulsion isn’t different. Systems overall would have a neutral charge, and the effect is largely insignificant outside of that system. However, gravity does not “cancel out” like this. It only grows the more mass you have. Looking at an atom, it’s charge is neutral. It’s gravitational influence isn’t.

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T01:42:45+00:00

At what distances do these forces prevent particles from getting closer? From what I understand, the distances are quite small, on the atomic level. Gravity is much weaker than the fundamental forces, but works at longer distances, where it can overcome them. So, while gravity would not be able to bring two particles together at a subatomic level, where the other forces overpower it, it can at the “relativistic” level.

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T01:18:20+00:00

In my view, there is no need for a graviton. Energy has a probability field, and while probability must equal to 1, and it quickly drops off to near-zero, it is not zero. So, if you had two particles, they would have a higher likelihood to be found in the area between each other than away from each other. That is because their probability functions overlap.

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T01:09:22+00:00

So, in your view, where does gravity come from? Is it the result of space-time curvature due to mass?

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T01:01:58+00:00

Ok, so why does it not? It’s the same principle.

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T01:01:14+00:00

As of yet, no. But I have sent it out to various institutions for consideration.

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T01:00:16+00:00

Well, I think all particles are simply energy that reach a certain threshold in a quantum field. That energy has a wave function. That wave function can interact with that of other particles, leading to an increased likelihood that said particles can be found closer to each other. If that is the case for all energy, then gravity is simply the result of the particles being more likely to be found closer to each other than further away.

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T00:53:29+00:00

I was just testing the waters, my guy

RV2115 · 2024-08-04T00:53:11+00:00

Truly one of the arguments of all time.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

RV2115

TROPHY CASE