Leaderboard

You can be a scientist but not publish very much; it depends on your circumstances. Not every scientist lives in the "publish or perish" world of academia. In any event, he has a number of journal publications in the last 30 years. here are three from <20 years back The Faint-End Slopes of Galaxy Luminosity Functions in the COSMOS Field C. T. Liu et al., 2008, Astrophysical Journal Letters, v.672, p.198 COSMOS: Hubble Space Telescope Observations N. Scoville et al., 2007, Astrophysical Journal Supplement, v.172, p.38 The Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS): Overview N. Scoville et al., 2007, Astrophysical Journal Supplement, v.172, p.1 I'd like a citation on that "fact" IMO no, but it also depends on the level of discussion. If you aren't supposed to discuss things outside of your area of expertise we'd have to disband SFN. i.e. you can still know certain things and discuss them despite not being an expert. The issue is knowing your limits and recognizing when you are out of your depth. We aren't aware of serotonin and dopamine? That's news to me. Your summary sounds like he was making general statements, which doesn't require expertise. It's wrong in the same sense that all science discussion is wrong - there's always more detail, and general statements always have caveats. But if you object to general statements, you'd have to eliminate almost all discussion.

Which is why Larry Flynt noted “Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper” (others have made similar observations over the years) What are the characteristics of this ideal democracy?

Makes me wonder if no true Scotsman would have a civil war?

You Canadians are so NICE! In even simpler terms, the South wanted to keep their slaves, the North wanted to do more business with countries opposed to the slave trade. There were folks on both sides who felt that slavery was wrong in principle, but the South relied more heavily on owning both the resources and the labor for production. The North was more interested in preserving the union of the states than in emancipating slaves. We even kept the concept of slavery and use it in our prison system, and people of African descent are still persecuted and not treated the same way white people are. But the North won because the states are still united as a country... sort of.

Could posters please post their discursive points in text and not by saying "here, click this." It's against forum rules, and it's a nuisance when you are somewhere that you can't watch videos. Usually, a clear text explanation of one's position is also much faster to read, especially when it comes to presenting facts. (I've seen videos that take half an hour to get to the point that one paragraph of text could have adequately made) Also, @Otto Kretschmer should retract his inaccurate comments about SSRI treatment and respond to my post addressing that. There is nothing wrong with critiquing pharmaceuticals used in treatment, but it needs to be done from an informed and fact-based perspective.

There's more to this than that, watch this before you cast your final vote...

Except that's not what he said. He said "we're kinda almost there" - which is less bold than what you quoted - and he mentions chemicals causing depression and how some depression is addressed but not cured by antidepressants, but he never makes a statement about its cause in humans. He's not making black-and-white statements. His tone makes it clear that there are still unknowns and things work for only some people. The rest is stating the goal that we hope to reach. How is that not an accurate portrayal? IMO he takes a proper tone in how he presents it.

This is inaccurate. Your "proof" is like saying milk isn't helping calcium deficient bones because blood calcium levels rise within hours of drinking but it takes weeks for bone density to increase. After carrying a message, serotonin is usually reabsorbed by the nerve cells. SSRIs work by blocking reuptake, meaning more serotonin is available to pass further messages between nearby nerve cells. This isn't a rapid mood booster in depressives, but rather provides an unusual surplus of neurotransmitter which assists in a healing process that can take quite a while before a more favorable (to emotional response) pattern of signaling pathways is established. Further quite a bit of therapeutic knowledge exists as to how to reap the most benefit from an SSRI course, so we do know a bit about the mix of chemical, behavioral, environmental, and social contributions to depression. Not having seen the video, I don't know how far I'd go in agreeing with NDGT, but your "how come SSRIs don't work in a few hours" criticism is not based on an understanding of how SSRI works.

I think your interest and level of understanding of science is exceptional for a person of your age. It seems like your idea of a black hole star is to explain the formation of the super massive black holes (SMBH) found in the center of most (if not all) galaxies. It seems more likely that the SMBH formed from a combination of merging stellar black holes and the huge amount of dust and gas at the center of the forming galaxies. I hope you continue to enjoy learning about science, it is a never ending and exciting journey.

Thanks, that’s a very useful summary of the possibilities. It was actually a recent exchange with @Orion1 that triggered my enquiry. Perhaps option 4 fits that particular case best. There does not seem to be any spamming or malicious intent, but some of the responses seem to be highly verbose (in the kind of way that would be marked down by a good teacher for "padding") and curiously devoid of any insight.

I do not claim to know but I'll add some opinions. It is technically feasible to have an LLM that interacts with a forum and to drive this behaviour by other means than in response to a user prompt. For instance by using plugin infrastructure that some vendors provide. But I'm not sure of there is enough value for an LLM provider to allow the LLM to start conversations with the internt to harvest data. When I look at the quality and volume of the answers to the posts that looks like generated by "automated generative AI" there is not much to harvest, compared to just scrape conversations between (non-AI) members. So what drives the behaviour that we see on the forums? A few ideas. Note that I would require forum data not accessible to members, logs etc, to confirm anything so these are best guesses based on experiences from working with IT and some AI models and systems: 1 Spam. It takes time for spammers to manually build reputation before spamming and some may use generative AI to create a few "Science-looking" initial posts. This means the spammer cuts & pasts between an LLM and the forum 2 Spam-account as a service. Bots that, given a login account, tries to build reputation by using output from an LLM . Then, based on the level of interaction the bot's posts created these accounts, with their track record, can be used for spam. Or traded for others to use for spam. 3 Automated spamming. Bots that have a queue of commercial material to promote and selects an account from no 2 above. In this case the "reputation" built in step 2 drives what content step 3 selects to promote. 4 experiments. Individuals or teams trying various LLMs against the forum members evaluating the outcome. There are emerging possibilities to run "small scale" LLMs outside the large well known vendors' control. Lower grade hardware usually means a less performant LLM which could explain some of the more surprisingly bad posts in the past. (This aspect of generative AI, locally hosted LLMs, is something I investigate currently) 5 sabotage. Disturb the forum and the community I do not find it likely that well established software vendors are actively working as described above, it would likely be nice players, possibly with malicious intent. The list is not meant to be exhaustive.

No, not familiar with it. But on a first glance it may be a good entry point. However you take the risk of taking a too deep dive in academic philosophy. Philosophy also has its technical concepts, sometime using words borrowed from daily language (e.g. 'intentionality'). What I like is that in nearly every main topic a few references to introductory sources are given. That could be a good start. Just take care not to declare an article as nonsensical before you really understand what an author is trying to say, and in what discourse she is presenting his text.

I use Merlin all the time. Absolutely love it. For identifying plants and trees I use PictureThis. Sky Guide is a very good app for identifying stars, planets, constellations. You just start the app and hold the phone up pointing at the star you want to identify. You can also point it in any direction (say, below the horizon or straight down) and it will show you the stars there too.

You seem to have put a lot of effort into this idea. Let's forget all objections to it, and see if we can 'add' to it with some quantitative analysis. The closest thing we have to a universal frame of reference is the CMB, which is very smooth, to 1 part in 1 million level, although colorizing the temperatures makes it appear to be coarse. There are however, two areas one 'bluer' and the other 'redder', which indicate our galaxy group's motion through the CMB; we are moving towards the 'blue' and away from the 'red' at a speed of about 627+/- 22 km/sec in the direction of galactic longitude l=276o+/-3o, b=30o+/-3o, from Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia . If we were to consider this speed of our galactic local group as the orbital speed around the super-massive Black Hole central to your idea, it is simple enough to make some 'rough' predictions about the size and distance of this super-massive BH. Now I don't particularly care for the idea, so I'm not going to make those estimates, but, as you seem to have a lot invested in this idea, perhaps you should, and see if they fit with current astronomical observations. if they should, perhaps the idea might be taken a little more seriously, as, so far, you've done a bit of hand waving, and called on Occam's Razor to justify your ideas. I would say your idea depends heavily on it.

Certainly! Here are the key points I am making: Analog media offer advantages over digital formats due to their independence from complex technological infrastructure, longer lifespan, and unique tactile experience. Technology has created a culture of instant gratification, particularly affecting younger generations, leading to addictive behaviors and reduced focus on long-term goals. The commodification of education, driven by market forces, compromises the quality of learning and undermines critical thinking. Contemporary society mirrors aspects of Huxley's "Brave New World," with capitalism driving voluntary self-indulgence and distraction as means of social control. Recognizing the influence of capitalism on shaping behaviors and desires is crucial for fostering a more critical and discerning populace capable of navigating the complexities of the modern world. It's essential to balance the pursuit of happiness with individual freedom and social cohesion to avoid sacrificing autonomy and critical thinking for convenience and pleasure. You raise valid points about the advantages of digital media that have led to its widespread adoption and reliance: Accessibility and convenience: Digital media offers almost instant access to vast amounts of information, allowing users to find answers to questions quickly and conveniently without the need to physically locate analog sources. This accessibility promotes active engagement and helps users stay informed and less "zombie-like." Searchability and ease of navigation: Digital platforms often provide efficient search functions and navigation tools, making it easier to locate specific information within a vast sea of content compared to analog media, which can be cumbersome and time-consuming to search through. Dynamic and up-to-date content: Digital information can be updated and revised easily, ensuring that users have access to the most current and relevant information. This contrasts with analog media, which may become outdated and obsolete over time, limiting its utility in an ever-evolving world. Compactness and portability: Digital media can be stored and accessed on compact devices like smartphones and tablets, eliminating the need for bulky physical storage space associated with analog formats like books or records. While analog media may offer certain nostalgic or sensory experiences, the practical advantages of digital media in terms of accessibility, searchability, and currency make it a preferred choice for many in today's fast-paced and information-driven society. However, it's important to recognize that a balanced approach that incorporates elements of both analog and digital media can provide a more nuanced and enriching experience, catering to different preferences and needs. You're absolutely right, and I appreciate your thoroughness in highlighting the complexities of media formats. Here's a more inclusive perspective: Obsolescence: Just like vinyl records, other analog formats such as 78s or Betamax tapes have become obsolete over time, demonstrating that analog media can indeed face issues of relevance and accessibility. Digital copying and preservation: While digital media can be easily copied and distributed, this also means that information can be preserved and shared more readily, ensuring its longevity and accessibility if properly stored and cared for. Longevity of formats: CDs have indeed been around for over 40 years, highlighting the durability and enduring popularity of certain digital formats compared to their analog counterparts. These points further emphasize that both analog and digital media have their strengths and weaknesses, and the choice between them often depends on factors such as accessibility, convenience, and personal preference. While digital media may offer advantages in terms of searchability, portability, and currency, analog media can provide unique sensory experiences and nostalgia. Recognizing the merits of each format can help inform decisions about how best to consume and preserve information in a rapidly changing media landscape. It seems like there might be some frustration or confusion about how something works. Let's break it down: Frustration and confusion: The speaker expresses frustration and a lack of understanding about a certain subject or technology, indicated by the phrase "I don't understand, how this fucking thing works." Shared sentiment: Another individual echoes the sentiment, indicating a mutual lack of comprehension or frustration with the situation. Implication of being "zombies": The third speaker uses the term "zombies" to suggest that the inability to understand or figure out the situation makes them feel disconnected or robotic in some way, emphasizing the frustration and sense of alienation. It seems like there's a shared sense of confusion or difficulty grasping a concept or technology, leading to a feeling of frustration or disconnect. It might be helpful to seek clarification or assistance to overcome the challenge.

I'm not an astrophysicist, physicist, mathematician or scientist. I've invested in this idea only a part of my free time. Someone else could make these estimates but, if he wants to publish the results, he must refer me (and my blog) as the original author of the idea. I don't deal with the expansion of the whole universe but only with the accelerating expansion of the part of the universe that we have observed until now. Maybe billions of years from now, the part of the universe that we have observed will be sucked into the colossal black hole. Now the part of the universe that we observe is expanding because the astronomical objects closest to the colossal black hole have accelerations greater than the more distant objects.

Do you think it's right that someone could publish a model without ever admitting that it is based on my ideas ? I've found an explanation as to why the objects have a spiral motions towards a black hole instead of orbiting around it at this address: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/32753/why-does-matter-spiral-into-blackholes

Are you sure ? Can we have certainties on the universe ? There are other possibilities: maybe the universe is much larger and much older than most peple think; maybe the universe is infinite: infinite mass in infinite space; maybe the universe has always existed; maybe the Big Bang was only a local event.

As I've written in my blog and in my posts, I don't think that galaxies and other astronomical objects are orbiting the CBH, but rather that they have a spiral motion towards the CBH. As I've written in one of my posts, I'm not an astrophysicist, physicist, mathematician or scientist. Someone else could estimate the mass of the CBH, its distance from the Earth and other data but, if he wants to publish the results, he must refer me (and my blog) as the original author of the idea. I've added two other ideas at the end of my blog (https://max70blog.blogspot.com/) that I report here below: Note also that, if in the universe there is more than one CBH, the motion and the acceleration of the astronomical objects that we observe, including galaxies and supernovae, may be influenced by the gravity of the other CBHs. Another idea, that could solve the cosmological constant problem, is that the discrepancy between the observed value of the vacuum energy and the much larger theoretical value of zero-point energy may be due to the gravity of the CBHs: part of the acceleration caused by zero-point energy could be deleted by the acceleration caused the gravity of the CBHs.