-
Posts
52812 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
260
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by swansont
-
I hope H didn’t stand for “Hugh”
-
To me a shortened version of a first name is not a nickname. i.e. I don’t consider ”Tom” to be my nickname. Nicknames I’ve had are Swanny (grade school) Stouffer (college), Puft (navy OIS), none of which are gender-specific. SNL had a series of sketches about gender-neutral nicknames. The lead character was Pat, and nobody knew their gender. Also mentioned are Terry and Chris, and homophonic names like Frances/Francis, Jean/Gene
-
Animals (specified in the OP) ≠ organisms Plants can be male & female Where does the other genetic material come from if the individual self-fertilizes? If there are two, then you’re doing what sexual reproduction does, so it it’s an advantage, then it’s an advantage. And AFAIK most hermaphroditic animals are invertebrates so there might be some limits on that mode of reproduction.
-
It describes a magnet in terms of the torque the magnet would feel in an external field A magnetic dipole (e.g. a bar magnet) with moment u in a magnetic field (B) feels a torque of u X B (u is a vector) The magnetic moment of a wire loop with area A and current I is u = IA (with a direction given by the right-hand rule)
-
Why is the sun moving so fast in this solar eclipse video?
swansont replied to myname's topic in Other Sciences
There’s no fixed reference, so how can you say the sun is moving at all? Or are you referring to the green crescent, which is due to an internal reflection in the lens? That moves because the camera is moving. -
I think it’s “perturbed” and it’s from pointing to issues that we already know about and account for as if they are unknown, and somehow a problem. You might be befuddled by the ramifications of a finite speed of light but I assure you that others are not.
-
Introducing Edge theory. It's like String theory, except...
swansont replied to NeptuneSeven's topic in Speculations
(multiple threads merged) How is your idea testable/falsifiable? What specific predictions does it make? -
In physics we use instrumentation when it’s needed, which avoids the issue. Eyesight is exceedingly nonlinear and not easily calibrated. In areas where eyesight is used it’s generally where delay issues have no impact. None of this is unknown, nor unaccounted for.
-
Microscope second hand to see living microorganisms
swansont replied to RogerTheBug's topic in Biology
A number of sites say at least 400x is needed to see cells and cell structure -
Which is irrelevant to the proposed issue of consciousness If time doesn’t exist, how can anything have a duration? How can such a notion exist, without time? How can your post exist, for me to respond to (now) if it did not exist in the past? There is an order to (causal) events, which tells us that time exists.
-
Wasn’t the notion that the brain does a bad job of assessing simultaneity below some level of precision your argument? If not, perhaps you can clarify what your argument is. My point is that your brain is only giving you as much truth as you need to have a chance to stay alive, as a result of evolution and within the limits of biology, chemistry and physics. We know it “lies” to us. It doesn’t seem to matter with regard to simultaneity, and we have imaginations and dreams, which are probably a positive rather than a negative. If you think it should give you more truth, you would need to explain how that would happen within the constraints we have.
-
“For the first time since the mid-20th century, over 95 percent of this year’s planned new electric-generating capacity in the United States is zero-carbon.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/04/11/the-next-phase-of-electricity-decarbonization-planned-power-capacity-is-nearly-all-zero-carbon/
-
! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 says, in part, “We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it” And you continue to post like this is your substack, and not a discussion board Rule 2.8 says Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them
-
! Moderator Note This isn’t the topic of the thread; you made claims about the Big Bang that are incorrect, so your objections are based on a straw man. Feel free to ask question in another thread to clear up your misconceptions This isn’t an issue of color perception. Your body can’t process information at the nanosecond level, and your brain’s processing is meant to keep you alive so you can reproduce. The notion that it will tell you the “truth” is a straw man
-
! Moderator Note One topic per thread, please, and the speculations section requires a way to test ideas - you need to make specific predictions, and that means a mathematical model No, it does not.
-
! Moderator Note Numerology is not science. We require a model with testable predictions, and this isn’t even close
-
eninn preaching. They did it again, and they are banned, as promised.
-
New knowledge vs paradigm shifts (split from Mind-brain)
swansont replied to Luc Turpin's topic in Other Sciences
By including some kind of deterministic process, i.e. a filter. What non-random result are you referring to? -
New knowledge vs paradigm shifts (split from Mind-brain)
swansont replied to Luc Turpin's topic in Other Sciences
That’s not a foundation of science; there are plenty of non-random, deterministic interactions. The reading you shared did not say that mutations are not random. It said certain outcomes have a bias, i.e. outcomes do not all have the same probability. The word would be credibility, which is gained or lost by whether one is posting information and making arguments that are credible. -
New knowledge vs paradigm shifts (split from Mind-brain)
swansont replied to Luc Turpin's topic in Other Sciences
"Changes our understanding of evolution" is not the same as a fundamental new principle. I was under the impression that the susceptibility to mutation not being uniform was known earlier than 2022. Also, the use of "random" is problematic here; things can be random even if the outcomes don't have equal probabilities. Fair dice are random, but you roll 7 more often than other numbers. A normal distribution is not a flat line.