joigus

Everything is elementary-particle based. The Iguazu falls are atomic-based too, but they can be approximately understood without appealing to quantum mechanics. The phenomena that we pointed out to you can't.

The thing about inter-stellar communication is that you must wait there for an answer for such an awfully long time that there is no prospect of anything in the way of a meaningful conversation. It wouldn't be "hey, we're here" as much as, "hey, we were here at some point".

Cells are generally replaced --except most neurons-- because they are the functional units. Chromosomes aren't. Chromosomes are packages of genetic material in gametes, which are haploid cells --some kind of random selection of half the organism's genes. Gametes in males are very much expendable. In females, they are more costly, but still. Gametes are cells for export, so to speak --I mean sex--, so they don't need to be replaced. When cells release stress signals --chemicals that inform about something not being quite right in them-- they are disposed of, so you can imagine that the genetic material inside is at least as expendable. I hope that helped. This is kind of my lowdown of the story. An expert will give you a more accurate picture. Edit: Welcome to the forums, Salik.

The way I see it, purpose does exist in the universe, but it is an emergent property. Intelligent beings have purpose because they have goals. The universe has no goal, as far as we can tell. It's no wonder that we, intelligent beings, have a tendency to see purpose everywhere.

I'm familiar with a shorter version of it, "brute force", as synonym of a not-very-refined method of solving a problem. As in, "instead of trying to find a clever change of variables, we may try to solve the equation by brute force." All I remember from neural networks is that it was about implementing an algorithm for "machine learning". The machine is involved in a repeated process of trial and error and the statistical weight are optimised. Something like that. @Ghideon --and other users too-- is the expert. Solving a jigsaw puzzle is kind of a paradigmatic problem for machine learning, as well as many other processes in which recognition of shapes and colours plays a part (texts in different fonts, etc.) I consider the thread very interesting, and I'm here to learn really.

Do I sense a time paradox?

This sounds like a problem for AI, which is, I think, what Ghideon suggests. https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk024nbBjc0bqbgZWN7Uiy_NzGaWpzA%3A1609506166041&ei=dh3vX-GIAo32gAbnwKGoAw&q=ai+jigsaw+puzzle+solver&oq=ai+jigsaw+puzzle+solver

conspiracy theorist a person who believes in conspiracy theories conspiracy theory the belief that a secret but powerful organization is responsible for an event I don't think Einstein can be called a conspiracy theorist in any sense. He was a theorist of the highest calibre. Science has nothing to do with goose stepping. There are discussions, arguments going back and forth, different approaches and interpretations. Well established areas of science may look to the novice as goose stepping. They are just agreement, bundled together by evidence.

Neutrons are most stable inside the nucleus.

There would be lots of diffraction. Direction would change considerably. Photon ending up just about anywhere. In vacuum photons don't change rapidity. In medium, they do, according to refraction index.

I won't, that's for my notebook for the time being. The equation doesn't make sense anyway. I'm having fun with the mathematical problem. I've re-derived the eqs. for hyperbolic motion, which I had forgotten, in case I need to explain them later. Your mathematical problem can be solved under assumptions of which you have provided no information. You haven't clarified whether \( T \) is proper time or coordinate time. Your equation makes dimensional sense if \( c=1 \) and all velocities are dimensionless. But you haven't said that, creating a lot of confusion. It's implied on your blog, though --see below--, when you say, If you choose velocities as dimensionless, you're OK, because a t-dependent parameter that appears in solving the eq. is, \[ \left[\frac{FT}{M}\right]=MLT^{-2}\times T\times M^{-1}=LT^{-1} \] Another thing you haven't clarified is whether force, velocity and acceleration are collinear. I have assumed that, because you should first tackle that one before getting into other cases. I've had to go through different hypotheses, like constant 4-force (derivative of 4-momentum with respect to proper time), constant rate of energy supply; \( T \) being proper time or \( T \) being coordinate inertial time. I've tried to study all the cases you could fork into. Something you should understand is that there is no universal character to how a particle moves under given circumstances. The law of motion is not a universal law under different assumptions for \( F \); it's just how that particle is moving under given circumstances. The key assumption seems to be \( F = \) constant. That is not universal. That just represents how you decide to push the particle. On your blog, advertising link removed by moderator where I've finally been able to take a look at your "derivation", I've been able to spot a couple more mistakes. There's no such thing as Lorentz mass dilation formula. And saying that energy is always force times distance is grossly mistaken. Also mistaken is assuming that momentum rate of change can be taken to be \( \frac{MV}{T} \). Neither can anything depend on \( \frac{V-V_0}{T-T_0} \) --finite differences-- in the equation of motion, because of well-known symmetry properties. This question of symmetry properties I leave for Markus, because he's the one dealing with that aspect on this thread.

What a goblet of nonsense! No. But people have. I remember a conversation with J.M.R. Parrondo years ago. I loved Feynman's work, but he didn't seem to find it so fascinating, for some reason. He was busy finding flaws in it. Apparently he found one in the chapter on thermodynamics and the ratchet, and that's what led him to Parrondo's paradox. My take on it is that even in error, Feynman was incredibly inspiring.

I'm no expert, but some "nice" sites, after clicking the "more options" button, allow you to disable all the cookies. Others inform you of different kinds (session variables, tracking, and so on). Although it's always up to you, of course. I'm sorry it didn't work for you. I thought a direct link to the video could work. I did disable the tracking cookies, if I remember correctly. What about just disagree? You will have to rely on the website's honesty, that that will disable all.

It doesn't really say anything. It's a video of some kind of analogical experiment. https://i.imgur.com/FfWg4GU.mp4 I hope a direct link to the video helps (it's very short.)

This is something I hadn't thought about. It makes a lot of sense.

Of course, most of us here are seasoned enough not to notice the telltale signs of the squids' strategy. Make it blurry. This particular squid has an alternative weapon: He throws Bible paragraphs at you.

Ok. If you're done discussing me, we can talk some physics. You still haven't addressed my question: Is your T proper time of coordinate time? Proper time is time in the non-inertial reference frame co-moving with the particle. Coordinate time is time as measured from an observer sitting somewhere and not subject to forces. The solving of the problem is very different. Also, the constant force is constant 4-force? (the derivative of 4-momentum with respect to proper time) If so, the solution of your "horrible" equation is trivial --as calculus is concerned--. I have solved it and I get a cubic in v, with coefficients depending on t. Assuming that's proper time. It doesn't look completely out of whack (it reminds me of solutions of hyperbolic motion), but you obviously have made some relevant conceptual mistake, that's why you're getting inconsistent units. Hyperbolic motion is the closest you can get in special relativity to uniformly accelerated motion. It's not exactly as I said, a constant 4-force. A constant 4-force seems to be what you're implying. I just want to know where the hell you have "derived" your equation from. Related to @studiot's comments: I am assuming everything is collinear and you don't mean a dot product. I also recommend you read carefully @Markus Hanke's comments. Instead of going into a tantrum, try to interact with the users. It's all I can say. But, as long as you got personal, just a couple more things: I've read Feynman's Lectures since I was 16, What do You Care what Other People Think too. Also, I can tell a jay from a tit, from a robin, from an avocet, from a gannet, etc. Not all of them, but just one blob of colour and in some cases I can distinguish two very close species one from one another, male from female, and one-year immature seagulls from adults. So yes, as an amateur ornithologist, I can tell. In other cases, apparently different species are grouped under same name because they happen to be male and female of the same. So names do help. Names are a useful mental tool. So Feynman was wrong about that one. But he was a genius. He turned other people crazy by insisting on his own names and notations, though. And a last thing: As to self-loving narcissism, how about coming up with a silly equation and naming it "the Frogton Universal Force Law"?

Mmmm. I don't know. There are several things going on, and gravity is not helping. I see it more as an illustration of osmotic pressure, or diffusion, than mechanical pressure. Also increase in entropy. Pressure would be more like the balls pushing a wall. For that I would recommend computer simulation. Some like this from Wikipedia:

That's enough of that, then. Isn't it?

Boy, that was hilarious!!! +1

In my understanding, a hypersurface is a relative concept. When you have an n-dimensional manifold (that in itself is a generalisation of a surface), any n-1 dimensional manifold embedded in it is called a hypersurface with respect to the n-dimensional manifold. I was kind of unsure if that concept was standard or it was just a local tradition, and here's what I've found --LMGIFY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersurface The really powerful concept is manifold, that Studiot mentions (in general, no reference to it being a surface, embedded in anything). There are also polytopes, that Studiot mentions too, and fractals could be interesting as well, if you're interested in irregularities of geography. Studiot is building towards a classification of most all different objects of geometry. But I think the "descriptor" that you're groping towards may possibly be the manifold and its local charts. How many variables you need to map the thing give you the dimension. Riemann intended "manifold" as a generalisation of "surface." The subject of geometry is vast indeed.

Just for the record, I agree of course that @Arete's answer was far better than mine in particular. I fail to see whether quoting me by an unintelligible fragment of text like, was intended as criticism, or an accident when using the quoting function. Anyway, just in case it was addressed to me... I also think the question was a very good one, and would like to see more questions like this, so that --I at least-- can learn more from the exchange. It's a good example of something everyone interested in biology have asked themselves at some point, and where simple "common sense" can, and does, mislead you. As Phi said, you asked whether the line of reasoning was wrong. And although I'm no expert, I will insist here on what I think are the main flaws in my own words as a non-expert, and hoping either Arete or others can clarify further, or correct me where I'm wrong. Of the two main most common fallacies I see, one of them has already been pointed out. Namely: most mutations are neutral, not deleterious. The other is the common misrepresentation of evolution that the "fulcrum" of it, so to speak, is the individual: (my emphasis) when the basic unit on which the lottery is played is the gene, or to be more precise, genotypic sequences. I think that's what Arete meant when they said, Beneficial changes accrue to the genetic sequence --not to the individual--, in the sense that it becomes more frequent in the population, even across species, as Arete has made transparently clear. I would say the genes for glicolysis have been impressively successful. They "couldn't care less" whether their host is a tomato or a dolphin, let alone this or that tomato or dolphin. You can think of it in a rather cynical --but hopefully useful-- way, which is: The individual is just a carrier of the "meaningful" genetic sequence; once it's played its sexual, nurturing, etc. role, it's disposable. While the organism is alive, it benefits, of course, from using winner genes.

If something that has long been proven incorrect seems obvious to you, you should review your criterion for attributing obviousness.

Oh, sorry. I forgot: Yes.