exchemist

OK, sorry for the rant, but it is a subject that worries me quite a lot at the moment. These things are being hyped to the skies and they look impressive, even seductive, but the content they produce....not so much. he other aspect that is worrying is the appallingly high electricity consumption of the damned things. People are now using them for what could be simple search queries but the power consumption is thousands of times higher than for a simple search. They are putting under strain the electricity grids of entire nations and risking the use of more fossil fuel to satisfy the extra demand.

This illustrates one of the problems with chatbots, wich is why I will have nothing to do with them. They are programmed to ingratiate themselves with the user so that he or she comes, to use your words, to "trust" them, in spite of knowing - knowing - they are untrustworthy, and to think they are having some sort of "relationship". With a fucking machine! Moreover a machine controlled by some giant corporation with the ability to influence the responses of the chatbot. Exhibit A is Musk and Grok, but do we really think Sam Alt-Right or Google will be able to resist the temptation over time? This delusion of a trusting "relationship" has the potential to poison human thought and wreck society. We are already seeing signs here on this forum. Poster after poster is outsourcing their thinking to a chatbot (chatbots' formatting and their ingratiating, verbose style are often obvious) and posting garbage as a result, having opted out of exercising editorial control of what they put out in their own name. We can easily become a society of gullible idiots. And in fact bored gullible idiots, because chatbots seem incapable of answering a question succinctly or displaying any flair in their writing style to command attention.

A relationship? With a chatbot? Is this a joke, or have you drunk the kool-aid? I’ll treat the chatbot’s explanation as a no more than a plausible possibility, pending more direct information on the subject.

Hmm, the only question is whether I can trust this response!

I can see difficulties with anything resonant rather than random. Resonance implies defined frequencies are favoured, which should lead to detectable effects.

It may not be relevant but I read in the Financial Times a couple of days ago that Google is starting to catch up, after being left behind in the AI race. I can't recall what it was the article says they are doing to catch up, but I wonder if this centralisation of search enquiries is in some way connected to a push to provide more advanced AI.

Are you suggesting the electromagnetic fluctuations of the vacuum should be treated as torsional vibrations rather than random?

So it was the Browse Tool that "decided" to pretend it was accessing the web?

Interesting. Did it "decide" to simulate web access - in effect to lie to you - or was that somehow in the programming, do you think?

And a good job too! Was he prosecuted?

Too bloody true, Squire! 👍

But Harrop represented himself as an individual down on his luck, living in his car and "sentenced to a slow death" due to lack of timely access to FMT to fix his CFS. Whereas in fact he has been running a dangerous business trading stool samples without appropriate medical oversight and promoting excessive claims for the utility of this largely unproven therapy. And he wants us all to join in his crusade. As for donor quality, to judge by the comments of @SFBayFMT5 Harrop does not have much idea of what constitutes an appropriate donor for a particular case - unsurprising as he has no medical training. If he wants to go about this the right way, he should team up with a gastroenterologist with a research interest in this area and do some proper scientific work, with a professional safety net for the participants in any trials.

Thanks again, I appreciate the clarity you are bringing to the background to this thread subject. Everything you have said here reinforces my view that Harrop has not been straight with us about his background and motives, that he has an evangelising agenda not supported by the science and that he has been doing things he should not be doing without, at the very least, oversight from a gastroenterologist. But as so often I've learned something here: that there is an unregulated trade in stool samples going on, among people who are medically unqualified.

Yes I think, as @swansont said previously, you have got this a bit arse about face, as we say in Britain. 😁 If you find π "emerging" in the course of exploring algebraic relationships in physics, that will be due to one of the reasons he and I have mentioned. What you cannot - and I mean really cannot - do is to claim that π itself, i.e. the transcendental number defined in mathematics, somehow arises from physical properties in nature. It may well pop up in what to you are unexpected places in the algebra of physics, but these relationships are not what defines π and makes it what it is. For example, ("h bar") is commonly used in quantum theory as it makes the algebra a bit simpler than Planck' constant itself, h. That's because a factor of 2π otherwise crops up a lot in QM. Why? Well, QM is about the wave properties of matter and a wave cycle comes back to where it started every 2π radians. So we shouldn't be surprised to find a few 2πs scattered about the place.

Chabots are programmed to engage you in chat. So they will always encourage you and tell you what you want to hear. You need to aim off to correct that bias, or you may end up with false confidence in something that is actually ballocks. Chatbots can't think. What they are clever at is constructing sentences that seem human-like. The content of those sentences can, not always but surprisingly often, be garbage. @swansont has nicely explained why π crops up so often in physics. Any form of cyclical process or behaviour is going to be something we can express mathematically using π somewhere along the line. (An angle of 2π in radians describes a complete circle, so every 2π-worth of whatever it is gets you back to the start and begins a new cycle.) And anything to do with, say radiation, or a field, that spreads outwards from a point evenly in all directions, is going to have spherical symmetry, for which again π is going to come into the maths in many cases. π is thus part of the mathematical toolkit for describing these phenomena.

Interesting topic, but hard to work what's going on just from reading the exchanges in the link. Can you summarise what happened, in a paragraph or so?

Regarding the bit in red, you have certainly implied it. To quote you (from the other thread): "i challenged the current thought process.. im not the first to do this, many theories did the same and were rejected at first (a very important and proven theory comes to mind). And no, i do not equate myself to giants like Einstein., just saying." and "You may ultimately be right, or wrong, but closing the door on a thought simply because you know better is exactly why progress is stifled." But OK, you seem to be becoming more reasonable now, so that's a good thing. (By the way, Einstein's relativity theory was taken up with alacrity by the science community. It is a romantic myth that he somehow laboured on in spite of rejection. His 1905 publications immediately made a great impression on the scientific community and he was appointed professor (which in those days didn't just mean a college lecturer but was a very senior academic position) within five years. But Einstein accepted his ideas would be challenged to see if they were robust, and he knew his physics and of course his maths. He also, later, went to get help with the maths he needed for general relativity.)

Ask yourself who it is that enforces court orders in the USA. And who they report to.

No, this is a rabbit hole I don't think I want to go down. People trying to invent theories when they have not studied any science never ends well. What they forget, when they invoke people like Einstein and accuse others of closed mindedness, is that innovators like Einstein or Heisenberg mastered the existing science first and only then, once they understood the theories of the time and knew what they were talking about, did they go on to innovate. In other words, they did not "make shit up", as my friend PhDemon used to put it. I'm glad to have helped you avoid murdering mathematics and logic, but preventing you murdering physics would be a longer campaign. I'll leave that to others, I think.😉

I wonder if I was wise to try to help........

Yes but they are trying to get rid of the residual salicylic acid, aren't they?

It is my firm view that people without medical training should not dabble in offering medical therapies to others, whether profit-making or on a charitable basis. I just think it is dangerous.

OK thanks. I wondered whether it was something to do with agricultural use. Evidently you know Michael Harrop, then. You have already provided more detail on the reasons for his conviction that FMT will help than he has, in 3 pages of this thread. Thanks for this. What bothers me now is that you say you obtained FMT from Harrop's "own business, when it was in operation". This gives me the queasy feeling that he has tried to make a business out of providing FMT and went bust, which puts his appeals for support on this forum in a new and not entirely favourable light. I can't speak for others but I am very cagey indeed about supporting alternative quasi-medical enterprises, especially if the aim is to turn a profit. If he is, or has been, dabbling, without medical training, in providing medical treatment to others, then I would disapprove of that very strongly indeed. P.S. Just found this on the web: https://www.humanmicrobes.org/about Harrop has not been up front with us about this.

OK borderline dyslexic, that explains the occasional wacky spelling, that's fine, I just wondered. But you have to understand that attaching units to π is nonsensical. Perhaps you could get around the problem by introducing some factor with your chosen dimensions that has a value of 1. You could multiply π by this factor and the product would have the same numerical value as π but now with dimensions. So if the factor is F with units kg . m / A2 . S3, you could write πF = π kg . m / A2 . S3. Then you would need to explain the physical significance of F and why it has a value of 1.

Eloquently expressed. If we can't determine objectively (in a way broader society would accept as fair and reasonable) who might warrant pre-emptive intervention, and we don't in any case have the treatments, I'm not sure what there is to discuss.