exchemist

That has been done……https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_Aren't_Real 😆

No. Gravitation is proportional to the mass of an object, and does not depend on the object’s composition. The molten Fe/Ni core of the Earth is responsible for its magnetic field, but not gravity.

OK I see. I think in that case it makes more sense to refer to this idea as an existence "principle" rather than a "boundary", as the latter implies some sort of edge or limit, in either time or space, beyond which some other regime may apply, whereas what you mean is a universal feature of the cosmos. It seems to me what you are doing is restating the old philosophical idea that "nature abhors a vacuum": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics) There does seem to be a certain truth to this, in that even the vacuum has quantifiable properties (ε₀, μ₀ and hence c). The vacuum therefore can't be said to be "nothing" in a philosophical sense, since how could mere "nothingness" have measurable physical properties? By the way it seems to me that is a conclusion one can reach without even going into such things as the QFT theory of vacuum fluctuations. However, like @swansont I struggle at the moment to see how this idea of yours is a scientific idea, as it seems to have no observationally testable consequences.

Surely if no region of space can be said to be truly void, that is saying there is NO boundary to existence, other than the limits of the cosmos itself? If so, where is this boundary?

That’s not chemistry, though. These are nuclear reactions, which belong to physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation It’s not exactly a new concept, as you can see.

Just to correct you on on one point of fact, Catholics are Christians of course. Catholicism is by far the largest Christian denomination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members

This strikes me as a flawed line of argument. First of all, only one religion, Christianity, was founded 2000years ago. Surely you need to consider religion in general, not just Christianity? Secondly, I have no idea why you refer to the "the first Islamicists and psychologists". There were no psychologists in the ancient world. And why focus on "Islamicists", when nearly all of the other major religions of the world are far older than Islam? Thirdly, your idea that religion was developed as a means of control of the population, while it may some have truth in it, needs more justification in my view. There were and are a variety of power structures in society, religious authority being only one of them. It seems more likely to me that religion originally developed as a way to help people come to terms with the vicissitudes of life. You see this not only in the teachings of the Abrahamic religions but also in religions such as Buddhism, which does not seem have a religious hierarchy exerting control in the way that, for example, Christianity did historically. I suspect what happened is that in some religions, religious authorities grew up as the theology became more sophisticated and that these then became, in addition to their earlier function as theological experts, a source of power over society. I certainly do not buy the notion you seem to suggest that a group of clever individuals sat around and dreamt up the idea of inventing a religion, in order to exert control over society. Fourthly, there is no evidence that people in the ancient world were any less intelligent than modern mankind.

What is your point? Pfizer makes a lot of very useful drugs, including the Covid vaccine I have received several doses of. Do you want the company wound up, or what?

From this response, I take it you are receiving some kind of psychiatric treatment and that you reside, at least from time to time, in a hostel. I think what you say about psychiatrists, as a profession, is nonsense. Psychiatric medicine is largely science-based, after all. I therefore suspect your view of them is quite likely coloured by whatever mental illness you are being treated for. So I don't think what you have to say is going to be very informative. I'm not going to be interested in reading an entire book about it.

What psychiatrists are these?

That actually occurred to me while I was typing. But I thought I’d better leave it to an American to articulate the sentiment🙂. In fact, Venezuela may also be an example of the famous “resource curse”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

No, it is not silly to point out the effects of corruption in places like Venezuela. The level of corruption in such countries is of an entirely different order of magnitude from that in mature industrialised countries. In places where the average person, or business, cannot trust the law to be applied more or less fairly, cannot trust accounting standards to be applied and cannot trust government officials and regulatory agencies to do their jobs without bribery, it is very hard for economic development to take place at all efficiently.

Quite. Nothing about Argentina.

On the other hand, they have produced a lot of very useful drugs. Obviously they are driven by the profit motive, so they will pick and choose what areas to research, which is why we can’t rely on them for all the drug research we need. But they do quite a lot of it.

Who did?

This is so bad it looks like an attempt at trolling.

There is no evidence for the notion that "souls" have different frequencies or wave patterns. So this is just another Wild Assed Guess (WAG) on your part, isn't it? What is the point in you posting this stuff? We can all dream up imaginary ideas like this. Why are yours worth sharing, if there is no evidence for them? And I notice you persist in your wrong-headed notion of energy, as if it is some kind of invisible substance. It is not. It is a property of a physical system. This is science forum. Please learn a bit of science.

Why would you need people at all, on board?

But you have a taste for necrophilia, I see.😁

Yup, and this stuff has subsequently proved to be a disaster, as it fails after a few decades, often without warning.

I’ve no doubt it has played a role in encouraging altruistic behaviour in lots of ways, up to and including self-sacrifice.

Still playing the same tedious cracked record, I see. As far as I can see, the only person at Toyota allegedly promising an all electric Hilux truck (there is already a hybrid) is the president of their Thailand operation, who is reported to have said he expects it to be in the Thai market by the end of 2025: https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a60306784/electric-toyota-hilux-coming-2025/ I cannot source even this to any direct Toyota source, so it may not be an official company statement. I learned, from this site: https://ccleasing.co.uk/news/99-the-best-electric-vehicles-coming-to-the-uk-market. that there is an issue of payload if one attempts to produce an EV version of an existing light truck design, due to the higher weight of the batteries potentially reducing the max. payload of the truck. Consequently, the electric light trucks now on the market - and there are already quite a few - tend to be all-new designs. The Toyota Stout (not Scout), which you refer to, is rumoured in some corners of the motoring press to be due to make a comeback as an all-new EV, at some point in 2025. So far as I can see, nobody says January and nobody says in the USA. Some details here: https://lexusandtoyota.com/2025-toyota-stout-ev/. (This is not a Toyota company site.) So this thread looks like yet more deliberate disinformation from you, once again trying to diss the shift to EVs. But indeed, it is more of a challenge for trucks than for passenger vehicles, due to the weight of existing battery technology for higher power outputs.

I'm sorry but this is bullshit. "A fundamental state of infinite field" is just meaningless. What sort of field? Sure, you can have a potential (energy) due to various kinds of fields, but you can't just have "field" without defining what the field is: electric, magnetic, gravitational or whatever. You can't have a field of just "energy" either. I've explained to you previously that energy is property of a physical system. It is therefore meaningless to speak of energy unless you say what system it is a property of and what type of energy you are describing. "Pure potential" is nonsense. And I most certainly did not say there is not scientific exploration (explanation?) for for unscientific people. What I said is that anyone scientific will find whatever you are trying to convey mysterious. That's because at the moment it makes no sense.

Sure but my point was that a "3σ fit" means it's not just a "speculative idea", as Carroll dismissively calls it, but supported by evidence, even if that evidence is far from conclusive at this stage. As Markus's post makes clear, the idea itself is not new. What's new is a fitting of actual data to a model of this type. At least, that is my reading of it.

There seems to be a certain amount of woo here. “Pure potential” is meaningless, as is the idea of a dimension, which is a mathematical concept, “living”. And your equation is also meaningless. It’s not surprising you think it’s mysterious: it’s certainly pretty mysterious to anyone trying to see any science in it.