swansont

That’s very ad-hoc, and one needs to explain how “something” happens at the remote location at the same time, and how a random result just happens to always show correlation with the measurement made that also produces a random result. They aren’t simultaneous. It’s just that you can’t perceive the delay, which would be at best a few nanoseconds if you’re ~30-50 cm from the mirror.

I think a rudimentary analysis would show the incredible difficulty of moving a mass of 6 x 10^24 kg out of its orbit to anywhere else local, much less a star that’s light-years away. We can get payloads of tens of thousands of kg away from earth. Invoking nuclear rockets doesn’t address the issue in any meaningful way. Proposing we do it by magic would be only slightly less rigorous.

My focus here is to make sure the rules are followed, and this is the second thread where you’ve been told that we discuss things that have reached the “science” stage, rather than the concepts of a plan stage, which is better suited to a dorm room at 2AM, possibly with chemical enhancements

Then you need to come up with a way to measure it. That hurdle must be overcome before you move on, rather than treating it as a trifle to be solved later. It’s not a theory without a model and a way to falsify it. Theory has a specific meaning in science, and it doesn’t equate to conjecture or guess. Earlier thinkers weren’t posting here. We have a reasonably clear description of what belongs in speculations.

Let’s see

So by your own argument, perception and curiosity do not move you into the realm of science. (The latter requires objective observation and some kind of testable hypothesis - science doesn’t do “proof” as such) But this is a science discussion site. Your proposal needs to be developed further before it fulfills our requirements.

It’s what we require, because vague claims leave too much wiggle room about whether the conjecture has merit, and you end up with something that “explains” everything in a completely/mostly useless way.

It’s not medical advice, as such. We’d discuss how e.g. GLP-1 drugs control blood sugar or the approach behind chemotherapy. It’s not diagnosing a problem or recommending a course of action for an individual. The problem here is that it appears to be no more than a WAG. There’s no substance to the proposal, and absent that it’s just trolling.

Theorists in physics are still physicists. In any event, the board’s rules require it. You need to be able to formulate some way it’s testable.

I think I have accounts on both but there’s a lot of traffic, so there’s rarely a chance to contribute. And I was on Bad Astronomy but left after it merged with Universe Today for similar reasons. On one of them (I think it was BAUT) I had serious issues with how they acted; there was someone who posted some nonsense but some of the post was legit, and I had the audacity to point that out. No capacity for nuance. (IIRC they were the same group who didn’t believe in significant digits). The episodes reinforced my feeling that we do a better job of moderating here.

Put a 225 lb weight on it

Why would this work? What is the possible damage it could cause and hiw would you mitigate it? You need to do more than give some wild guess.

History, rhyming again…

This is word salad. Layers of frequency and dimension? Experiencing resonance? How can anything “overwhelm reality”? Asserting facts is kinda necessary for a theory. You need to have it be testable - making specific predictions that can be compared to experiment or observation. How does one do this with your proposal? What specific predictions does it make? How is it falsifiable?

All electrons are spin 1/2 particles with a -1 fundamental charge. How would that be “diluted” by having an infinite number of them? How are Newton’s laws of motion “diluted” by having an infinite number of entities? Or the theory of evolution?

How about you provide a few worked example of how your equation might be applied.

Moderator NotePosting to advertise your website is against the rules. The link has been removed. Please review our rules, especially the one on AI https://scienceforums.net/guidelines/

How does one test it? It’s nonsense. I see a lot of buzzwords. Not much substance. Google can’t find these references, Not even yours. AI hallucinations. We don’t allow discussions based on AI slop.

It sounded like you were saying there’s no point in thinking about or investigating why the constants have the value they do. I don’t think certain physicists (or philosophers, for that matter) would be keen on being told not to do that. Or that they shouldn’t check to see if they are indeed constant.

Again, I have no idea what you mean. It’s like you’re having a thought but only post the second half of it.

I’m not going to quote the whole post; the proposal is obviously AI generated and such content is not allowed here

He didn’t just blurt out the statement at random. The context of the conversation matters.

Not sure how this would be applicable to physical objects I don’t see this as having a lot of traction; you can certainly investigate what happens if the constants have different values and see how (or that) things fail to work — changing the characteristics of fusion, for example. What we might not know is whether you can change only some of the constants without affecting others, but I’m not sure how that gets tested. There’s a limit to any irregularities for similar reasons. If the nature of interactions were inconsistent, how do we end up where we are? How do we get data of various vintages that’s all consistent with the interactions being the same?

You posted about science and technology, and it’s up to the presenter of these things to show that their work is valid and correct. That’s a hurdle everyone has to overcome; it’s not bias. The work is compared against how nature behaves, so if the idea doesn’t measure up to that, it’s not biased to reject it. Einstein was talking about inspiration and intuition, which are important, especially in coming up with something new. He wasn’t talking about just making stuff up, untethered from reality, and he was in no way implying that knowledge is unimportant. Why can’t you test it and show the results? Without specifics it’s impossible to say for sure, but lots of ideas run afoul of experiments that have already been done, which means they get rejected out of had.

Yes, tariffs are killing us. You handed it to me so it’s nacho problem, but the news is not grate. Not gouda at all.