exchemist

I don’t see how any reproducible phenomenon of nature can fail to be due to something physically and objectively real in nature. You can’t make a model without something for it to be a model of, surely?

Yes, scientific theories are models, the map and not the territory, and sometimes we have multiple maps that show different aspects of the territory, or which are sometimes not easy to interpret. But that does not mean there is no territory, or that we can make up our own ideas about it.

Yes.

Why? This subject has been done adequately, hasn’t it?

Thanks. Always interesting to get an insight into another industry. Phosphine as a fumigant strikes me as bloody dangerous, though.

That’s interesting. What chemical process is that?

I did not know about carborane acid. Rather interesting. Thanks for drawing to my attention.

That strikes me as an unjustified assumption. People can vote for war if they feel suitably motivated, for instance by persuasive leaders. If different parts of a country are sufficiently alienated from one another and those separate parts have a system to vote independently, they might even vote to go to war against the others. And then again, no country has a theoretical ideal democracy in the first place.

But surely this is due to relativistic effects (loss of energy as gravitational radiation) which only become significant at close range, isn’t it? Yet you are proposing spiral paths for objects far from the black hole, aren’t you? Or have I misunderstood?

Doesn’t spiral motion require a progressive loss of kinetic energy? What causes this loss and where does the energy go?

Thanks, that’s a very useful summary of the possibilities. It was actually a recent exchange with @Orion1 that triggered my enquiry. Perhaps option 4 fits that particular case best. There does not seem to be any spamming or malicious intent, but some of the responses seem to be highly verbose (in the kind of way that would be marked down by a good teacher for "padding") and curiously devoid of any insight.

I use PlantNet on country walks, which is a free app that works on iPhones and can identify species from leaves, flowers, fuit or bark, or so it claims. With leaves and flowers it seems to work most of the time. I have not tried fruits or bark so far. Certainly adds interest to the walk.

Ah, I didn't know publishing on-line was something set to school students as an assignment. In that case, I suppose the use of a LLM might account for the strangely verbose and grandiose language. Seems rather a waste of everyone's time, and not a great way to teach, but there we are.

Hafele-Keating or Dunning-Kruger?

That's what prompts my question. I wonder if someone like @Sensei or another IT-literate member might know more about how they gather "information" (by which I suppose I mean chunks of plausible-seeming text to regurgitate).

I've noticed a number of OPs in recent months that seem to start a subject by means of a rather mundane attempt at teaching a topic, instead of asking a specific question or raising an issue for discussion. Some of them seem to exhibit the clunky/pompous/faintly patronising verbiage I am learning to associate with material written by a LLM. I had assumed these programs would only respond to a request, but I'm starting to wonder if they go off on fishing expeditions to gather information to regurgitate. Does anyone know if they do this?

Right, so a collection of disparate observations, with no linking theme or thesis. That's rather what I thought. All very Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.

What brain computer interface do you have in mind?

I'm not asking you to do the experiments. I'm asking what experiment could, at least in principle, be done to show that Chronovibration is real, and what would one expect to observe? You do not seem able to answer this. From your earlier posts you seem to say the frequency of this chronovibration is equal to c/Compton wavelength. As the Compton wavelength of a particle is h/mc, that would mean the chronovibration frequency is c²m/h, i.e. proportional to mass. Do I have that right? If so, is there some way to show that the chronovibration frequency of, say, the electron, is lower than that of the proton, by a factor of 1836? How could this frequency be detected and measured?

I’m interested in the same question as @Ghideon, which you have yet to answer: how would chronovibration be measured? What would the experimenter need to do in order to demonstrate that chronovibration is real? This has been asked more than once now in this thread and your answers have not been very clear.

Just read the posts made in response to you up to this point and look for the sentences with a question mark at the end.

Leibnitz and Newton are thought to have independently developed calculus at around the same time, though I think it was Leibnitz who published first. As so often with science and mathematics, the idea was germinating at the time and trying to determine who got there "first" is rather debatable and of limited value. Both men most certainly existed, though. I can't make sense of the rest of your post.

Sure, I just meant it as an example of where factors other than technical superiority have determined the technology chosen. Thinking about it more, I suppose @TheVat's point may not actually be a technical one really, but more an economic one, viz. why spend limited resources on a "sticking plaster" technology, rather than on those that address the problem at source? But again my view would be the amount of resources is not really fixed. Some governments, corporations/societies may be willing to devote funds and effort to a "sticking plaster" technology that they would not be willing to expend on, say hydrogen, or nuclear energy, in which case I would say let them do that then, at least to see how far it can be made to work, while others pursue the more fundamental solutions.

Icelanders already do use geothermal power, a lot, for electricity and space heating. My attitude to this is that the human race seems to be currently in a "brainstorming" phase, in which many rival approaches are being tried simultaneously, without much judgement as to which are best. I think that is the right approach, as so many of these technologies are new that we can't yet be sure which will be the ones we take forward and which will prove to be dead ends. I have in mind it is not just a matter of apparent technical superiority. There are human factors, such as social acceptance and geopolitics, to take into account as well. Betamax was technically superior to VHS. Regarding "greenwashing", this is an easy accusation to make but the fact is we will need fossil fuel for quite a few years yet as we make the transition. It seems to me carbon offset trading has a role to play while we do this. I don't buy the notion that they are all about continuing business as usual.

Can you summarise the key points you are making here in a paragraph, or in bullet point form?