exchemist

Obviously a joke - or at least facetious. "Culinary theology", "symbolic botany" etc.

And do I detect yet another bot-inspired “framework”? 🙄

I don’t understand the question. Can you provide some background and more detail?

All of which is to say that indeed a scientific theory cannot be patented. All this AI slop of yours is saying, in characteristically prolix style, is that it is only physical embodiments of some kind, i.e. inventions, that rely on a theory, which are patentable. The theory itself cannot be.

No, because measurement involves interaction with the particle, which affects its state, changing the outcome of subsequent measurements. This inability (usually) to measure without affecting the thing being measured is known as the "observer effect". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

OK thanks, I’ll dig around and see if I’ve pressed a button by accident at some point. So site settings is what I need to look for. Anyway, stand down , just a goose, eh? 😁

Why would it do that just for one website?

Yeah, it's curious. I find that nothing "downloads" when I access the site via the iPad. It's only on the laptop. And if I enter the web address manually on the laptop, it asks me if I want to authorise a download from the site. I don't get this with other websites. Maybe I should clear the cookies and see if that gets rid of it.

Hmm, that’s good. Perhaps it’s my laptop that is on the blink. I’ll investigate with other sites and check.

On a mac , whenever a download from a website takes place, you see a little thingie move rapidly across the screen to the top right and vanish. And when I checked the downloads file, a new file had indeed appeared, with a time stamp that corresponded. As I say , 175kb in size. This does not happen when you just click on a website.

I have just tried to access the Rationalwiki website and was alarmed to see that by clicking on it something instantly downloaded itself onto my laptop. When I checked the downloads file all I saw was a 175kb file called Main Page. I deleted it and tried again with the same result. Does anyone have any idea why this might be happening? My first slightly paranoid thought was of spyware.

The most obvious error is that your device is not lifting the 10.5oz sled. It is moving it sideways, using what looks like a roller. The force needs to achieve that only has to overcome rolling and a bit of sliding friction, not the entire weight of the sled. So the work done is not what you have said it is, but far less. In fact we know it can't be more than 3.22 oz-cm.

OK, but the claim you make about achieving this larger mechanical output (by which I presume you mean a larger force, but working over a shorter distance) is evidently key to what you regard as your invention. So you need diagrams or a description of how that is brought about. The picture you provided doesn't seem to show this at all.

Tesla was wrong about a lot of things. He is also a notorious favourite of cranks. One suspects the two things may not be unrelated. 😁 Coming to your question, your opening premise is incorrect. Everything is not "made of energy". Energy is just a property of a physical system, like momentum. It is not "stuff". You can't have a jug of energy. Energy has to be the energy of something. Secondly, there is no "law of attraction" in science. Though there seems to be something of the kind talked about by people who go in for woo. So, all in all, I suggest you rethink your question - or take it to a woo forum.

Yes I think that may be it. To the mass media, that horse had long since bolted, I suspect.

Yes that is exactly what I had in mind. But I didn’t know about the Hunan market samples. That is interesting. I wonder how widely disseminated those findings were. Certainly didn’t seem to hit the headlines in the UK.

You need to post material for discussion here on the forum, without requiring readers to go off to open other files. By the way, you cannot get a patent on a scientific theory.

OK agreed re satellites. RE Covid, surely the genome would be the same whether the origin was directly from the wild or via a lab leak, wouldn't it?

Re satellites, yes I understand that satellites in the same or very similar orbit can collide. But there is a vast range of altitudes available. I'd have thought that satellites can't change altitude without energy expenditure - unless, I suppose, some process occurs that alters the degree of ellipticity of their orbit. Is that possible? On the SARS-Cov-2 business, I'm not sure "Ethan" is any kind of final authority🤔. As I understand it no complete investigation was ever undertaken and no conclusive evidence has been brought to light either way. What worries me a bit is that claiming it was the fault of the Chinese was what the Trumpies jumped on, causing a reaction against that hypothesis by the anti-Trumpies. So the whole thing became a political football, involving the monstering of poor Fauci etc., and reason flew out of the window. Ethan seems to me to be attacking an Aunt Sally, dismissing the wilder notion that the virus was synthetically derived, by a Fauci-as-Frankenstein 'gain of function" process. Agreed, there are good reasons to dismiss that. But still leaves open the more reasonable possibility that poor virus security at the lab let escape a natural virus that they were studying. His argument doesn't seem to address that, so far as I can see. Dismissing a "gain of function" hypothesis does not dismiss the broader "lab leak" hypothesis.

I'm curious as to your rationale for saying the formula for binding energy of a sphere is wrong. I'm far from expert on this, but doesn't the classical derivation of the binding energy make use of Newton's Shell Theorem, thereby avoiding the need to worry about the effect of the mass inside each infinitesimal shell on that shell, when doing the integration? But no doubt I am misunderstanding.

This is a discussion forum. Nobody here is in need of a bad lecture on kinetic theory. What do you wish to discuss?

I must admit I wince rather when people write of "scientific truths". Strictly speaking the only "truths" in science are very well-corroborated observations. The theories and hypotheses that depend on these observations are models. It also seems to me some of the statements are rather tendentious. Perhaps the most obvious is the assertion that SARS-Cov-2 arose from natural zoonotic spillover. According to my understanding, we simply don't know for sure whether that is how it arose or whether there was some bad lab hygiene at the Wuhan lab, chiefly because the Chinese government has refused to cooperate in a thorough investigation. So I do not see how one of the two routes can be described as a "scientific truth". It is merely considered the more probable of the two, surely? I would also like to see some explanation of the "finite carrying capacity of Earth's orbit". What does this mean? "Earth's orbit" normally refers to the orbit of the Earth around the sun. Is that what is meant? Surely not. Is it then the orbit(s) that satellites can occupy to orbit the Earth? If the latter, surely there are innumerable orbits, at different altitudes and orientations.

No.

Yes, I think probably I do.

Ah OK thanks for clarifying. So the issues that matter most in your view include include: "wars, terrorism, violent crime, anger issues, domestic and child abuse, sexual assaults, governmental corruption". As none of the issues in your list are features of the natural world, there is no reason to expect science to provide much help in dealing with them. It's like complaining that a spanner doesn't help you clean your teeth.