Leaderboard

“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/

Hence why I stopped adding to the mix. Once I saw you were progressing from their comments I didn't want to add any potential confusion. Threads can get too easily derailed.

OK. As I understand it, the idea is inserting the tab, or finger, causes the magnets to be attracted to it, instead of repelled from one another as they are in the previous phase of the motion. If we describe the operation in terms of an engine cycle, there are 4 phases:- 1) magnets close together no tab inserted, high energy of the field 2) magnets have moved apart due to mutual repulsion, reduction in field energy. Work imparted to output shaft 3) tab or finger inserted into the gap, causing magnets to be now attracted towards it, with further lowering of field energy. More work output to the output shaft (and some work output to the input shaft as well, due to the attraction) 4) tab removed from the gap between the magnets, which are now close together. This replaces the force of attraction to the tab or finger by mutual repulsion of the magnets, which are now at close separation, i.e. back to (1). It is this step that requires the substantial work input which returns the stored energy in the field to its stating value. Failure to realise the work need to do this is what can lead the incautious designer to think he has an over-unity machine, as the other steps all involve extracting work from the magnetic field. At least, that is my energy-based analysis of this machine.

Logically incorrect, even if the premise is true. Equivalent to “All dogs are mammals. I am a mammal, therefore I am a dog.”

He sought the advice of a mathematician who told him to work it out with a pencil.

One recent YouTube video about Trump’s ‘God Bless The USA’ bible that has gone viral in the last week or so is a factual review of the product by a man called Tim Wildsmith, a devout christian who actually reviews bibles for a living on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_6TVa7scKM Tim Wildsmith makes the following points: - This bible is advertised at $59.99, but actually costs $75 with tax and shipping. - In his opinion a Walmart style bible like this should probably cost around $20. - The website implies this bible is bound in real leather - but it’s actually bound in fake synthetic leather. - The text used is the copyright free King James Version, but without any notes or cross-references. - There is no copyright page or printer info - which usually means the bible was printed in China. - The page stock is too thin, so you get substantial bleed-through of text from the other side. - The gilt edge pages tend to stick together and tear easily. Another well known political satirist called Tea Pain USA cites Tim Wildsmith’s review, and calls attention to a remarkable omission in the MAGA material found at the back of this Trump bible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB32CR7Zc9s Although the Trump bible contains a copy of The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and The Pledge of Allegiance, it *doesn’t* include any of the amendments from the 11th through to the 27th. Tea Pain suggests that these conspicuously missing amendments provide a damning vade-mecum as to which parts of the US Constitution Trump and his fellow Christo-Nationalist Fascists would dearly like to expunge - or at least pretend never to have existed - most especially: 12th Amendment - “Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for the President…” 13th Amendment - “Neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude .. shall exist within the United States..” 14th Amendment - “ No person shall… hold any office .... have engaged in insurrection or rebellion..” 15th Amendment - “The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color…” 19th Amendment - The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied… on account of sex…” 22nd Amendment - “ No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice..”

A few things should be added to lay the foundation for further discussions. First gonochorism (the term to describe a sexual system where there are male and female members) does not always have to be linked to sexual dimorphism (the term to describe differences in appearance between male and females of a species). Sexual dimorphism is often a consequence of the respective reproductive strategies. Among hermaphroditic species, one can actually also distinguish between various forms. The one OP is thinking about is considered simultaneous hermaphroditism, i.e. all individuals producing sperm and eggs, but there are also species who are sequential hermaphrodites. I.e. producing egg or sperm at different points in their life. Studies trying to figure out fitness benefits have been investigating closely related species in which all three strategies are found, e.g. in certain worms. Here, it was found that the different species had different reproductive characteristics, that likely have benefits under different conditions. Generally, they found a trade-off between fecundity (how much they reproduce) and survival. Simultaneous hermaphrodites had the highest survival rate, but least fecundity (and smallest eggs, indicative of lower maternal investment), whereas the opposite was found for sequential hermaphrodites. The gonochoristic species was somewhere in-between. Taking that all together (survival rate, reproduction over total life cycle etc.) it seemed that the dichoristic species had overall the highest fitness. They had higher fecundity in the early stages of life cycle. They outperform simultaneous hermaphrodites, which have lower fecundity. While sequential hermaphrodites are more fecund, they are delayed until their female phase, and during the whole life cycle they are not able to compensate the early advantage. Essentially they are able to reach sexual maturity faster, likely as they only need to produce one form of gametes. The disadvantage of that gonochoristic species pay is that they produce males, that cost the same as females (as eggs) but do not directly contribute to future generations (the limiting factors are the eggs). Hermaphroditism is speculated to be a primary advantage when population densities are low and it is difficult to find a mate. There are also evolutionary developmental consideration. Transition from hermaphrodite to gonochoristic species is comparatively easy, as it could be reasonably executed by suppressing the development of one sexual function. Conversely, there are more steps involved in transition from gonochorism to hermaphroditism. I.e. once gonochorism outcompetes hermaphroditism in the evolutionary history of species, it is very unlikely that they hermaphroditism will develop, even if it became more advantageous.

Poland may offer a lesson to would-be Far Right autocrats. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/14/abortion-poland-maga/ The United States is not alone in confronting a right-wing authoritarian movement that, in addition to undermining democratic institutions and lashing out at the news media (“enemy of the people”), makes curtailing women’s reproductive freedom central to its agenda. The experience of Poland, in which a right-wing government virtually eliminated access to abortion and later paid for it at the ballot box, is instructive as Republicans try to flee from the harsh implications of their antiabortion ideology.... ...Polish voters last year threw out the right-wing government after eight years of authoritarian rule. Women disproportionately carried pro-democracy forces to victory. “Almost 75% of eligible women voted — a 12% increase over 2019,” wrote political scientist Patrice McMahon for the Conversation. “The election also saw a record number of female candidates (44%) and the largest percentage of women (30%) voted into Poland’s Sejm.” Their activism largely centered on abortion. When the right-wing Law and Justice party (PiS) took office in 2015, McMahon wrote, “Poland had one of the strictest abortion laws in Europe. After the ruling government tightened abortion restrictions further, Polish women took to the streets.” Lo and behold, “A breakdown of the women’s vote finds that many women voted for leftist and centrist parties that made women’s rights and liberalized abortion laws a priority.” The democratic coalition leader Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s party is now proposing loosening (albeit not eliminating) abortion restrictions.

Confucius says, "It is only when a mosquito lands on your balls, that there is a way to solve problems without violence"

Trump of course would somehow claim it's just fake pews...

Is Einstein's theory of relativity able of solving the twin paradox? When the traveling twin turns around to reach Earth, it observes a blueshift of the light emitted by Earth instantaneously, not after some time. This seems to suggest that the blueshift arises from the twin's own acceleration and therefore its own motion through ether, not from the apparent movement of Earth relative to it. The Earth, on the other hand, must wait for the blueshifted light from the traveling twin to reach it at the speed of light. This seems to indicate that the observational symmetry of special relativity is not physical, but that there might be an underlying asymmetry as proposed by Lorentz's ether theory. Here is another line of reasoning that leads to the same conclusion: Consider two bodies, A and B, in relative inertial motion. A accelerates and immediately observes a change in the relativistic Doppler effect of the signal emitted by B. It then stops accelerating. This change in the relativistic Doppler effect is composed of a kinematic and a transverse Doppler effect component. According to Einstein's relativity, from the point of view of A, the change in the Doppler effect arises from the change in B's motion. It includes the transverse kinematic Doppler effect component, therefore B undergoes a change in time dilation. However, this change in the transverse Doppler effect does not originate from a change in B's motion but from A's acceleration. We are certain of this because it appears as soon as A accelerates. If it came from B, A would have to wait for it to propagate from B to A at the speed of light before perceiving it. Since the change in the relativistic Doppler effect does not originate from B, B cannot experience the change in time dilation. On the other hand, since A causes the change in the Doppler effect, he undergoes the change in time dilation but observationally perceives it as happening to B due to the perfect symmetry of the relativistic Doppler effect. Indeed, A can always imagine that the signals it receives are distorted by the change in B's motion since the observed deformation is the same as if B had changed its motion. However, since A knows that the change in the Doppler effect arises from its own acceleration, he knows that he is the one experiencing the change in time dilation. Here a citation by Langevin : https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/L’Évolution_de_l’espace_et_du_temps

That's an interesting philosophical question, do you have scientific evidence you do believe in God? Aww bless, you seem awfully confused, are you saying that a belief in god is necessary to not rape women? Is that why some priest's choose to rape little boys?

This is a misconception which is as common as it false. SR is a model of Minkowski spacetime - it describes the relationship between any set of frames within this paradigm, irrespective of what their states of relative motion and acceleration are. In the special case of inertial motion, this relationship is simply a hyperbolic rotation in spacetime (=Lorentz transformation); if acceleration is involved, the relationship is a little more complicated, but nonetheless well defined: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity) There’s no “paradox” in the twins scenario that somehow needs resolution, it’s simply a straightforward consequence of the geometry of Minkowski spacetime, which has to do with the lengths of world-lines.

I am sorry to report a brief period of backsliding. A canister of honey coated almonds. Our eyes met across a crowded room, at the home of Sam and Janet Evening, and I felt a sick rush of almond lust that I had assumed was long ago consigned to my distant youth. I stumbled across the room, my mouth filled with saliva, and began to pack my cheeks like a squirrel at the peak of acorn season. Fermentable oligosaccharides! I moaned. Not the easiest phrase to moan with a full and avidly chewing mouth. California aquifers be damned! (also a challenging word string to enunciate while masticating) A beautiful woman who bore an eerie resemblance to the Santitas Corn Chip lady walked past, and I took advantage of the distraction, the substitution of one sensual delight for another, handed her the canister and said please keep these away from me! Pobrecita! she said, with a silken yet husky voice only a corn chip lady could possibly manage. Later I walked home, my feet pounding the hard macadam, back to the macadamia nuts to whom I had pledged my life and my sacred honor. One of the hardest journeys of my life.

Conflating cultural and biological aspects generally makes poor arguments as it pre-supposes some natural order that folks should adhere to. While I am not (yet) saying that this is the case here, it is often a tactic used to push a narrative under the guise of "just asking questions", as we have seen in the past. So far OP seems to continue to ignore clarifications and counter arguments, though.

Excellent analysis, both of you. Sorry, I have no more reaction points available today or you'd both get a +1. This is exactly what I came here to explore. All I have to do now is re-read both comments carefully to make sure I understand. Thanks.

Pretty sure there's a x-post here with @exchemist so briefly: If we're starting from your declared position of maximum attraction, we're moving against an attraction force for 900; then with a weakened repulsive force (poles wide apart); then against the same repulsive force; then finally with the mirror image of the attraction of the initial power stroke. In the absence of a proper mathematical analysis, by symmetry we have a nett zero sum. And then there's cam friction and the hysteresis braking mentioned earlier. Granted I've ignored secondary effects of the movement of the magnets themselves but frankly, that's beyond my pay scale. Suffice to say, if there was anything to see here, Faraday would have found it back in the day I think. Looks right enough, so you've got the 1800 phase shift covered. Shall we leave the +/-900 phase shifts to the OP?

But you are not only asking questions. You are making contentious assertions - or at least advancing contentious opinions - too. You say it seems that the male of the human species is becoming less relevant. You cannot expect us all to go along with this without challenging it, because it is patently ridiculous. The human male has dominated human societies for millennia and a quick glance at the sex of those occupying positions of power and influence in modern societies will show you they are still predominantly male. We can't just answer your questions, if your questions start from a false premise. Surely you must understand that?

Over unity is the same thing as what is traditionally known as a “perpetual motion machine of the first kind”, i.e. one that claims to break the 1st law of thermodynamics. So it’s not a slur. There have also been ideas for perpetual motion machines of the 2nd kind, which claim to break the 2nd law of TD instead. As I have mentioned, it can be good sport to spot the flaw in the logic of the designer. A rule of some patent offices, e.g. the US one, is patent applications for perpetual motion machines will only be accepted if accompanied by a working model. Which they never are, of course. So recognising perpetual motion machines is something patent office examiners (as Einstein once was,incidentally) and patent agents have to be able to do.

Monopoles is an interesting study for example it's potential would fall off at 1/r as opposed to 1/r^2 for dipolar, 1/r^3 for quadrupolar ie the combination of two dipolar fields. As opposed to quadrupolar in gravity waves. Boit-Savant law can be uses to solve for the above if I recall.

Both: we’ve solved the conundrum presented by your machine, I’ve revised some magnetism I haven’t looked at since school, and you’ve become motivated to learn more about it. And for me, another perpetual motion machine bites the dust, which I can add to my tally.

In return, perhaps you could clarify something for me. What is the phase relationship between magnet pole separation and finger position? If we define zero degrees for the disk when a finger is directly between the poles, and zero degrees for the poles as minimum pole separation, then what phase difference between the two should we consider for optimum performance? And how is that optimal phase difference maintained?

One important difference, though, is that in the OP's machine the poles of the two magnets are opposed so that they repel. The region in which the fingers on the input disc move is in principle an area in which the field lines will be squashed outwards in the plane of the fingers of the disc.

Perhaps one way of looking at this contraption is to compare it with a Faraday disk (aka homopolar generator). In the latter, both motion and induced current are in the plane of the disk with the magnetic field perpendicular. The OP is rotating this so that motion and magnetic field lines are in the disk plane therefore forcing induced current into the perpendicular. However, different portions of the disk will see different current polarities depending on whether they are moving towards or away from the magnetic poles. In particular, the portion of the disk passing directly between the poles will see a sharp switch in polarity and consequent current flow component appearing in the disk plane. This will in turn deflect the magnetic field lines somewhat out of the disk plane as if attracted by a temporary opposite pole. I don't know whether it's a good picture, but in my mind's eye, I'm seeing this induced temporary pole falling into a potential well only to climb back out as it departs with no nett overall energy change in and of itself. However these circulating currents are a different matter as they will add a time lag to the ideal case making ascent harder than descent, acting as a brake in exchange for simply heating up the disk.

OK, in that case, what I think you will find is it takes significant effort to pull the finger out of the gap, as the force of attraction is stronger once the magnets have moved inward, than the force that pulls it into the gap when you insert it. So you do net work on the system that way and this provides the energy that restores the stored energy in the fields to the status quo ante.

OK, now we get to it. In your proposed machine, the magnets first repel one another, doing work and lowering the stored energy in their respective magnetic fields. You believe that when you insert the steel finger between them, they will then be attracted towards it, doing more work and further lowering the stored energy in their fields. And then, when you move the finger out of the way, they move apart again due to repulsion, extracting yet more energy from their magnetic fields. This obviously cannot be the case. So there is something wrong with your assumption. Either you will find the magnets are not attracted together when the steel finger is interposed, or you will find the finger resists being inserted or removed, such that the operator has to do work against the field, thus supplying the required energy. At the moment (being a chemist rather than a physicist) I am not sure which of the two it is, but logically it must be one or the other, it seems to me. My suspicion is that the magnets will not be attracted to the finger. If you consider the path of the flux lines when the finger is in between, they have to turn sharply horizontal within the finger and pass outward to each side. This I think means the dipoles within the finger will not be able to align themselves with either field in the way that you (implicitly) suppose, as they will be perpendicular to the fields, and so no attractive force will result. If that's right, you would be able to twiddle the finger wheel as fast you like and bugger-all will happen! But perhaps you should build it to confirm exactly how it fails to work.

Ahem....

The most basic electrical devices consist of the following elements: a resistor, a capacitor and an coil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductor The most basic electronic devices have the above elements plus a diode (or equivalent vacuum tube), a transistor (or equivalent vacuum tube), integrated circuits, microcontrollers, and processors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit Integrated circuits, microcontrollers and processors are programmable, that is, they execute a program that someone wrote and upload to them or to RAM and/or ROM. Where stands your "steel wool" with the above?

Indeed. However, But when a magnet and something attracted by it move closer together, under the influence of the force of attraction between them, work is done. I am saying this comes from a reduction in the stored energy in the magnetic field.

Interesting about Chatham. I was surprised to see from the castle battlements an old (decommissioned?) submarine moored in the river, just downstream of the bridges carrying the railway and road. I might pop down the line from Victoria again some time and take a look. I think it's the next stop after Rochester. Back on the topic, yes there will be work done when the magnet and steel object move relative to one another under the influence of the force from the field. W= Fd, remember. But when the magnet is static, held to the beam by its magnetism, no work is being done. I think that is what @swansont meant by saying magnets don't do work, i.e. they don't do work when they are just sitting there, simply by virtue of being magnets, as it were! And there is no inexhaustible store of energy in a permanent magnet that you can draw on by incorporating it in a perpetual motion machine. There is finite (fairly small) energy imparted to it when it is magnetised and you can get a bit of that back, once only, by allowing an object to be drawn towards it. But if you separate them again as part of an operating cycle of some machine, you have to put the same energy back each time. So as I say, no free lunch.

Either of the two main smallpox vaccines can control it, so if it were perceived as important (eg by killing white people instead), it would be easy enough to deal with. We get the odd case here from time to time. Nature's way of telling us not to mess around with rope squirrels (suspected wild reservoir).

The musician finally gave up and began to erase all the lines of notes. His wife walked into the room and asked, "what is that smell?" "I'm decomposing," he replied.

This is a much more reasonable response, @exchemist, thank you. At least you understand what I'm talking about. So what is happening is that there is a movement of energy into and out of the magnetic field, much like storing energy in an inductor, I guess. That's what I was referring to as 'work', perhaps inaccurately. We might consider that the steel sheet is 'falling upwards' towards the magnet in its magnetic field, that when the steel sheet is on the table and the magnet is fixed 30mm above it there is a potential energy imposed by the magnetic field and when the steel is attracted up to the magnet then that magnetically induced potential energy is converted to kinetic energy until the steel sticks to the magnet. Now the magnetic potential energy has been converted to gravitational potential energy. Then if the magnet is an electromagnet and we cut the current to it the steel falls to the table, a conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy until the steel rests on the table again. Have I understood correctly? As an aside, I used to live in Chatham, Chattenden and Maidstone when I was at RSME and serving in the Royal Engineers. I spent a good deal of time at the Historic Dockyard in Chatham, where I drove steam cranes on the docks at the weekends. So I'm quite familiar with the area. That place is very interesting too. If you get a chance to visit the Officer's Mess at the dockyard you can see the vaulted ceiling that was built by ship's carpenters and is really the upside-down hull of a ship.

That wasn't my intention, I was trying to get you to learn before you leap. What do you actually mean by a transducer? Because, as I've previously mentioned, tree's don't think before they open their mouths. Indeed, in the brain as I previously stated, we just don't know which bit does the thinking. Indeed, I'm pretty sure I mentioned dog's and computer's in relation to consciousness, in this thread (if memory serves). But again, it does nothing to bolster your case. What's all this "we" business Tonto, do you have a relevant doctorate?

I was out yesterday (visiting Rochester, on the Medway, a very interesting town with a Norman castle, a c.12th cathedral and a rather fine old high street with a lot of history) so have only just seen this. A permanent magnet has energy in its magnetic field. This energy was imparted when the magnet was first magnetised, aligning the magnetic dipoles of the atoms. A permanent magnet is thus in a metastable, higher energy, state, compared to one that has become demagnetised. What happens when a piece of paramagnetic or ferromagnetic material comes under the influence of this field is a bit complicated but I think in energy terms it is something like the following:- The magnetic dipoles in that material are induced by the field to align with it. This costs energy, relative to the previous field-free, non-aligned state and the energy required comes from the field of the permanent magnet. So there has been a potential energy transfer from the permanent magnet to the material that is being attracted to it. The potential energy of the system can be further lowered by allowing the two objects to move together. It is the stored energy in the field of the permanent magnet that is responsible. (This is made clear when you consider the work you have to do to pull the two objects apart.) But any repeated process involving separating and moving together permanent magnets simply moves energy into and out of the field. Energy can only be extracted from it once, in the phase in which they move together. After this there is no free lunch. Yes I suppose that makes sense. Does it make sense, I wonder, to speak of the radiation distribution having an entropy? What you seem to suggest is that the black body distribution has the maximum entropy of any radiation distribution.

download (1).html

I once tried building a "perpetual motion" machine not too dissimilar - not because I thought it would work but to work out what I was missing, to understand why it wouldn't. Needless to say it didn't work and I saw the push of magnets equaled the pull, with friction as well.

Just like with any other product. Trump markup. That’s the point of this grift. Or there is no copyright attached, which would be the case for the Bible. I’m shocked, shocked, that deceit is going on here. A scam? Involving Trump? The deuce, you say! </s>

Perhaps a short digression into the philosophy of science is appropriate. Science develops models of nature that enable correct predictions of the behaviour of nature to be made. Very often these models are recognised as approximate or incomplete and thus to have a certain scope of application which should not be exceeded. Newtonian mechanics is a good example. Nobody says Newtonian mechanics is "wrong" but it doesn't work at the atomic scale, nor when relative speeds are a significant fraction of c. We all know this and use Newtonian mechanics with those limits in mind. The magnetic circuit model is evidently quite successful for many engineering purposes, provided one doesn't stretch the analogy of its fictitious magnetic "current" too far. It is a scientific model insofar as it makes correct predictions for how nature will behave. If your model tells you a static magnet continually does work, though, you have a major problem, because you need to explain where this energy appears, what its source is and why this source never runs out. So at that point your model fails.

OK I understand what you mean and I'm aware there is a "magnetic circuit" model used in engineering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_circuit However this has drawbacks if used incautiously, as is in fact mentioned in the article. There is in truth no magnetic "current", as nothing flows. Whilst we habitually draw flux lines with arrows on, these do not indicate a flow of anything. The magnetic field is a vector field, i.e. it has both a magnitude and a direction at any point in space. The density of flux lines is used to denote magnitude and the arrows denote direction. That is all the arrows mean. A field is not a current. (This is explicitly stated in the section of the Wiki article subtitled "limitations".) As for whether this way of thinking of magnetism is a better description, we have just seen how it has given you the wrong answer, in the example of the magnet stuck to a beam. So clearly it has severe limitations. The circuit model may be fine for analysing the shape of the field in electrical machines and so forth but, as with many models in science, it has limits and if these are not borne in mind it can make you look a bit of a berk! 😀 I had not heard of Ed Leedskalnin (not Leedskillin), but I see he was a Latvian immigrant to the USA who was active in magnetism between the wars. I also see that indeed he was on the right track in interpreting magnetism as arising from circulation of charges within the substance, just as I described to you in my previous post. His understanding was thus a foreshadowing of what we understand today about magnetism from atomic theory, quantum physics and quantum chemistry. (Quantum theory was developed in the late 1920s and 1930s, possibly a little later than when he was writing about magnetism.) P.S. Curious fact: magnetism can in fact be shown to arise as a consequence of applying the theory of special relativity to electric charges in relative motion. I think that is rather cool.

Rookie mistake. There is no such thing.

I think you need to discuss this with @Maartenn100 . He claims there is no past. At least one of you must be wrong. I'm going to edge my bets and say you both are.

Philosophy that ignores science is a Lewis Carroll 'rabbit hole'. And you know what they say of people who assume ...

I have a friend that writes songs about sewing machines. She’s a Singer songwriter or sew it seams

Why does everyone think there is a need to 'harmonize' Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity ? The two models are well suited to each of their areas of applicability. But there is no doubt that the universe is probabilistic in nature. This non-determinism is 'smoothed out' by large numbers to make it virtually deterministic at larger scales. We are currently at 18-19th century levels of understanding with the two models as we were with Newtonian particle dynamics of gases, and Thermodynamic theory of gases. It took Statistical Thermodynamics to bridge the gap, and give us a more inclusive view of Gas Theory. The large numbers of Statistical Thermodynamics 'smooth out' the transition between the two models; yet the two models also remain valid in their respective applications, and are still used. Some day we may have a model which bridges the gap between QFT and GR, incorporating the most fundamental ideas of both, but that won't mean current QFT and GR cease to be valid where applicable. I am certain, however, that whatever theory manages to bridge the divide, will not, in any way, mention consciousness ...

Relax, NSA monitors! He's just joking!

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.

Obvious fake...there's only one turtle... LOL. (quietly...yeah no...I won't go there!) In his defence I also would photoshop in some extra...ah...fingers, if my ah...hands were that small... Hard to make any future claim you're "just a patsy" after that post! 😄 ...and I'll see myself out!

He must eat pie 22/7.