swansont

! Moderator Note This is very much the forum for getting testable predictions. It’s a requirement. Teasing that you’ll get to “the meat” is something we’ve seen before, and it never pans out. You’ve not given any indication that this will be different, and if you don’t deliver (and soon) the thread will be locked. A journal? With peer review? Are you going to make preprints available? I don’t understand. What are “these problems”? How are they growing larger? How do you conclude that standard physics won’t solve the problems? Cosmology isn’t a huge slice of physics, though it’s more visible (as it were) than other areas.

The second side was not brought up in the OP, which was simply asking if there are ways to password-protect files.

I’ve had documents sent to me that were password protected. Microsoft docs and pdf files

I hope H didn’t stand for “Hugh”

To me a shortened version of a first name is not a nickname. i.e. I don’t consider ”Tom” to be my nickname. Nicknames I’ve had are Swanny (grade school) Stouffer (college), Puft (navy OIS), none of which are gender-specific. SNL had a series of sketches about gender-neutral nicknames. The lead character was Pat, and nobody knew their gender. Also mentioned are Terry and Chris, and homophonic names like Frances/Francis, Jean/Gene

It’s random - any pick has the same odds of winning. Picking unpopular number increases the odds that, if you win, you will be sole winner, or at least have to share with fewer people, as your quote says. So the expected payout increases.

Animals (specified in the OP) ≠ organisms Plants can be male & female Where does the other genetic material come from if the individual self-fertilizes? If there are two, then you’re doing what sexual reproduction does, so it it’s an advantage, then it’s an advantage. And AFAIK most hermaphroditic animals are invertebrates so there might be some limits on that mode of reproduction.

It describes a magnet in terms of the torque the magnet would feel in an external field A magnetic dipole (e.g. a bar magnet) with moment u in a magnetic field (B) feels a torque of u X B (u is a vector) The magnetic moment of a wire loop with area A and current I is u = IA (with a direction given by the right-hand rule)

Genetic diversity. You’re getting genes from two different individuals each generation, or possibly each instance of mating.

There’s no fixed reference, so how can you say the sun is moving at all? Or are you referring to the green crescent, which is due to an internal reflection in the lens? That moves because the camera is moving.

I think it’s “perturbed” and it’s from pointing to issues that we already know about and account for as if they are unknown, and somehow a problem. You might be befuddled by the ramifications of a finite speed of light but I assure you that others are not.

(multiple threads merged) How is your idea testable/falsifiable? What specific predictions does it make?

In physics we use instrumentation when it’s needed, which avoids the issue. Eyesight is exceedingly nonlinear and not easily calibrated. In areas where eyesight is used it’s generally where delay issues have no impact. None of this is unknown, nor unaccounted for.

A number of sites say at least 400x is needed to see cells and cell structure

Which is irrelevant to the proposed issue of consciousness If time doesn’t exist, how can anything have a duration? How can such a notion exist, without time? How can your post exist, for me to respond to (now) if it did not exist in the past? There is an order to (causal) events, which tells us that time exists.

Wasn’t the notion that the brain does a bad job of assessing simultaneity below some level of precision your argument? If not, perhaps you can clarify what your argument is. My point is that your brain is only giving you as much truth as you need to have a chance to stay alive, as a result of evolution and within the limits of biology, chemistry and physics. We know it “lies” to us. It doesn’t seem to matter with regard to simultaneity, and we have imaginations and dreams, which are probably a positive rather than a negative. If you think it should give you more truth, you would need to explain how that would happen within the constraints we have.

Sounds like one of Zeno’s paradoxes. This, of course, has nothing to do with consciousness. There’s plenty of evidence that time passed without the benefit of conscious entities being around. But don’t let facts get in the way.

“For the first time since the mid-20th century, over 95 percent of this year’s planned new electric-generating capacity in the United States is zero-carbon.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/04/11/the-next-phase-of-electricity-decarbonization-planned-power-capacity-is-nearly-all-zero-carbon/

! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 says, in part, “We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it” And you continue to post like this is your substack, and not a discussion board Rule 2.8 says Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them

! Moderator Note This isn’t the topic of the thread; you made claims about the Big Bang that are incorrect, so your objections are based on a straw man. Feel free to ask question in another thread to clear up your misconceptions This isn’t an issue of color perception. Your body can’t process information at the nanosecond level, and your brain’s processing is meant to keep you alive so you can reproduce. The notion that it will tell you the “truth” is a straw man

! Moderator Note One topic per thread, please, and the speculations section requires a way to test ideas - you need to make specific predictions, and that means a mathematical model No, it does not.

! Moderator Note Numerology is not science. We require a model with testable predictions, and this isn’t even close

eninn preaching. They did it again, and they are banned, as promised.

OTOH if that fraction of calories utilized is roughly constant, then eating more/fewer calories means you are absorbing more/fewer calories.

! Moderator Note The rules require that material for discussion be posted from rule 2.7 members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. … Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted