Leaderboard

I don't know about Sringy, but in Michel's case it could be all the bells he keeps hearing

We have a "contract" with those we choose to regulate us, whether it is government, police, or a youth soccer coach. We choose to give some people guns and the authority to use them, but the 'contract' says that in turn they will use their authority in the manner we expect, which includes fairness. In other words, "If you only use your guns and authority on those who are breaking the law, then the rest of us will abide by the law. If you break that contract by doing things like kneeling on someone's neck until they die, then we will no longer be bound by the terms of the contract that restrict us." In broad terms (and not looking at individual events) the police have broken the contract and now there is hell to pay. Today's events in the US are on a smaller scale but no different than the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, labor unions that violently fought against businesses and a million other events where those in charge oppressed those in their care. Eventually people have enough and fight back. And with my blessing. It is unfortunate that innocent people are harmed in the process but no authoritarian has given up their power because the people asked nicely.

During the 2016 election only 55% of eligible voters participated. Of that Trump got 46% of the vote. Meaning only 25% of eligible voters in 2016 voted for Trump. So saying 1/3 of Americans is too high.

May I also add, @michel123456, that the concepts of vacuum that you so much dislike is also what allows you to formulate plausible scenarios for known experimental physics? Vacuum Einstein field equations --> The Sitter universe Vacuum in QFT --> anomalous g-factor of the electron In the first case, it gives a prediction that escaped Einstein and that's been confirmed by measurements on supernovas. In the second case, it's the most astonishingly precise prediction that's ever been. (1 part in a billion) You're clutching at straws here.

This makes my head hurt but that would be a non-sequitur with your second statement, which I agree with... without evidence. By 'is a function of' I mean it is 'dependent on' or 'arises from' something else. I could be using 'function' in a different/non-standard way to you.

I think I get what you're saying BTW, why do LaTeX formulas get screwed up when you quote them? In general I think you are right...I'm just not sure about this particular instance. We first postulate that time might be a result of symmetry breaking; but symmetry breaking can't happen unless there is already time prior to that process. This kind of seems problematic, no? Maybe I am missing your point here somewhere... Yes, I get what you are saying. But the thing here is that GR has nothing whatsoever to say about spacetime as such - it is only about the geometry of spacetime. I think this is a really important distinction. The question as to the nature and small-scale structure of spacetime itself is outside the remit of GR. It simply connects energy-momentum distribution to certain aspects of local geometry (and even then it's only a constraint, you still need external boundary conditions), so it is about the dynamics of spacetime, not its nature. Yes, and there is a fundamental problem here, in that the QFT vacuum is observer-dependent, whereas the GR vacuum is not. I don't think I would agree with this. At the very least it would be the other way around - what's in it is a function of space. I'd also argue that existence in no way requires either space or time - but that would only lead us down yet another rabbit hole According to its formal definition - a relationship between two or more sets, domain and codomain.

Why would I want watch some childish rant on youtube, I can see the same thing right in this thread.

That's too bad. I had an idea that the system could be adapted to a sensor which attaches to water pipes, and connects through wi-fi to an app running on your computer or phone. The app would warn you of excessive water flow, indicating a leak or bad valve, on that particular pipe, or even the main. Had a bad flapper valve on the toilet in the basement, by the laundry room. The only time I'm down there is to do laundry, so the water is always running, and I didn't hear the toilet running on for months. Only noticed something was wrong when the $725 bill came.

There's no action at a distance. Wow! That is a NEW* idea. ------- *NEW=Not Even Wrong

Boy, this is going south in a hurry!?!

Does this hold water? Space is a function of what's in it otherwise it can't exist... a bit like energy can't exist on its own because it's e a function of something.

How do you know it's a "bite"? Could it be a small rash that keeps getting scratched open? Or perhaps a wound in a place on your leg that gets a lot of movement, or rubs against clothing, or something else that delays healing? In 6+ years, why haven't you mentioned this to your doctor? It seems odd that the tissue hasn't healed completely in all that time, even if you were interrupting the process somehow. After hemostasis, there's a step where the wound is cleansed by fluids and coagulating platelets before the real repairs can begin. It sounds like your wound is stuck in that phase somehow. We can talk about what it might be, but we can't advise you what to do about it, other than ask your doctor. I hope that makes sense.

And, I will add, this is not just true for the Schrödinger equation. In all of physics, there is the tendency to analytically solve only the simplest systems. It’s one reason we tend to look at ideal systems, and ignore complicating factors as much as possible.

Learn what censorship is. ! Moderator Note DON'T START A POST ABOUT FUNDRAISING FOR YOUR IDEA.

Very interesting question. +1. The concept of locality in field theory that I'm familiar with is better characterised with a precise mathematical definition. A typical non-local evolution equation would be, \[f\left(x+a,t\right)=L\varphi\left(x,t\right)\] where L is some differential operator, \varphi is your field and f is a source. The values of the field depend on distant values of the source. Any change in f would affect your field instantaneously. This can also be characterised by the dependence of the evolution on arbitrarily high orders in the spacial derivatives of the source (it could be the field itself). If you want to express the evolution in a local reading (values at x, and not at x+a), you would have, \[f\left(x+a,t\right)=f\left(x,t\right)+af'\left(x,t\right)+\frac{1}{2!}a^{2}f''\left(x,t\right)+\cdots\] You could have more complicated patterns of non-locality. For example, if your source term were of the form, \[\int_{-a}^{a}dx'f\left(x'-x,t\right)=L\varphi\left(x,t\right)\] There is usually a parameter like a here, which tells you how far away this range of non-local influence is. People talk about non-locality in relation with Bell's theorem, but they are confusing this concept with that of non-separability, which is very different. Edit: Another possibility for your source term: \[f\left(x,t\right)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}daf\left(a\right)F\left(x-a,t\right)\] Range a: the influence is exponentially suppressed by an a-dependent factor. f(a) falls off to a certain range. Edit 2: I'm not so sure about what you mean here. I would have to think about it.

I listen only POPular musics full energy!

Interestingly, this too is mistaken. Decades of evidence shows rather consistently that the riots get more out of control and the property damage gets worse the more police are present. From 50 years ago: https://belonging.berkeley.edu/system/tdf/kerner_commission_full_report.pdf?file=1&force=1 From 5 years ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/01/when-police-ratchet-up-the-force-riots-get-worse-not-better/ And from 5 months ago: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/06/01/why-so-many-police-are-handling-the-protests-wrong

pahaha : low reliability in the video but still laughing...:) hahaha hahaha

Maybe Biden should just state the obvious and call Covid-19 his running mate

Are you?

I thought you were: But it sounds like you are just here to be disruptive.

Its a joke, so i am starting to get worried you are not a bot, so its even more disturbing, i would imagine a bot not understanding jokes but ok you dont either.. Ok, so its not an "idea", and i am not looking for fundraising, did you read the title of the post and all my comments beside the last... can you read? DEFINITION OF CENSORSHIP Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies. Governments[5] and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship.[6] When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. General censorship occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel. Do you think my post fits into any of those? And i would understand if i actually posted a fund raising post, but i didnt

I didnt inflict any rule, i made a sarcastic comment when YOU where giving the initial idea the prospect of a company.... honestly i think this is censorship or applying an absurd rule when the post was undersgoing a good conversation Dumb laws, also called weird laws, strange laws, futile laws, or unnecessary laws, are laws that are perceived to be useless, humorous or obsolete, i.e. no longer applicable (in regard to current culture or modern law). A number of books and websites purport to list dumb laws. These are in many cases based on misunderstandings, exaggerations or outright fabrications.

Your first warning was in GREEN. You may find when trying to develop and market a new product that you are often challenged on the technical, marketing, financial and other aspects of your business. Especially by people you need to help you (e.g. investors). You might want to think about how you would react to such challenges when they happen. Would potential investors be impressed by an angry tirade in response to a comment on your plans? Would they be more or less willing to invest if you make false statements? Maybe you need to find a forum more suited to your temperament and goals. There is generally little discussion of product or business development here. And we do require people to obey the rules, especially the one about being civil.

Again, WHO is talking about a PRODUCT?, i am talking about an idea and its applications in real life, during the post you turn it into a product making statements on how hard sevaral aspects would be to implement, fine with me, but then dont complain if i talk about product related issues... and start banning conversations. Put it this way is not the same talking about the idea on how useful a real levitating board would be than actually discussing all the problems related to its manufacture. I dont see you getting the point. My attitude is aligned with your moderators behaviour and incompetence. must watch this video to understand how i feel talking to them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxuxJpWnicU Any way true this is not the correct forum to talk about ideas that might endup being a product, fine with me.

It cannot be patented Your incompetence is so extended that you dont see that the value in this idea is not the idea itself is the training of the neural network, hence a brain with no training is just meat. You should train a bit more...

First patent legal framework is not uniform across the world and its economic areas, second you dont know what you are talking about, "inventive enough" is a subjective argument ... So just as a little hint, this is what is not patentable in sweden: According to the Patents Act, an invention cannot only constitute: a discovery, scientific theory or mathematical method, an aesthetic creation, a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business, or a computer program, a presentation of information, a procedure for surgical or therapeutic treatment, or diagnosis, to be practised on humans or animals. But again someone with ignorance in the neural network field would not see any break through in this, and would only see a man with stick, fooling himself he is so proud he discredited an idea, but is its lack of understanding giving him a false thought of confidence when he talks. And you sound VERY confident to not even have looked at the inners of the idea, or by other means not even knowing wat a neural network is! Here you go: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01413870