swansont

Perhaps you could give an example of this idea resulting in a practical physics solution.

That’s a problem for your credibility, IMO. Wrong statements don’t actually defend a premise

If a big studio gambles on this and the movie tanks, they’re in trouble if nobody is willing to work for them. The movie industry has some pretty strong unions.

There is not, in any dwelling where I have knowledge of the smoke alarm operation.

Not futile for the actors, film crew and possibly writers who would currently be displaced from work. I think it will happen via an independent movie maker. The big studios will only go that way after it has seen success

There is nothing new here, except for novel spelling of things (e.g. “exceleration”) and things like graduation rates are not part of physics. Up until you mentioned “intensity” I don’t think there was any physics at all.

! Moderator Note Moved to a more appropriate section

Any studio that does this (where CGI is not required) had better quickly transition to doing it 100%, because I think they will be boycotted by the SAG, and possibly other unions. I don’t see them passively watch as AI eats into their livelihoods

! Moderator Note Teasers are not the approach we prefer. As we say in rule 2.8, which prohibits soapboxing, “This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall.” Further, speculations proposals require a way to test them. Physics already uses logic. You haven’t shown anything novel yet, and your images are not as illustrative as you might think they are.

What’s your opinion?

What a novel idea, taking someone’s statement at face value instead of assuming a hidden meaning, but I don’t give a rat’s ass about your premise. The statement is wrong, and I explained why, and you refuse to acknowledge that. Instead, you’ve presented irrelevant arguments and logical fallacies in trying to defend it.

How much ToE research is currently happening? I get the impression it’s largely the effort of amateurs. Physicists tend to be more compartmentalized in their efforts.

If someone had demonstrated one, it would be big news, yet no such news seems to exist. Do you have information to the contrary? Science is provisional. We will overturn the prevailing view when there is compelling evidence to do so. But it takes a lot, (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say) when there is so much evidence that the prevailing view is correct. Conservation of energy is a consequence of time translation symmetry (from Noether’s theorem) and there’s no evidence that the laws of physics are changing over time. The ultimate response here is going to be to ask for the evidence: where is it? We kind of expect people to do their own analysis. Not doing it means you won’t (i.e. laziness) or you can’t (lack of knowledge of the math snd/or physics) Either way, that’s your shortcoming, and your job to fix it. We’re happy to help but you have to ask rather than assert. Someone showing up making assertions but without the requisite background knowledge is a rather mundane occurrence. The only difference is the specific implementation, but beyond that it’s kind of boring.

These were known prior to LIGO; theory predicted it and the decay of the orbit of PSR B1913+16 (the Hulse-Taylor pulsar) was experimental confirmation of gravitational radiation, which requires the first two. But none of this confirms the graviton.

Indeed, since nobody has ever demonstrated one, one could easily argue the arrogance lies with the person claiming to be the first to have finally designed one.

Now you're moving the goalposts “god did it is just as viable an answer [as “I don’t know”] in science” Science isn't your personal domain, so this isn't a personal choice. If you said “for me, god did it is just as viable an answer [as “I don’t know”]” that's one thing; that would be a personal choice. But that's not what you said.

You say that as if it matters. Right or wrong isn’t the issue, and people not doing science is irrelevant. Your assertion was “god did it is just as viable an answer [as “I don’t know”] in science” so you already defined the scope as people doing science. Who clearly lived 500 years before modern science was developed, so I’m not seeing your point. Just seeing the tap-dancing

Verified by whom? The local substance abuse champion?

It assumes the existence of a god, when there’s no scientific evidence of one. The issue isn't whether it’s true, it’s whether it has scientific merit, i.e. that “god did it is just as viable an answer [as “I don’t know”] in science” You need testable hypotheses in science. But there are wrong ways to think, if one is doing science.

! Moderator Note WTF is this non-sequitur? If someone says they like dogs, it does not mean they hate cats.

The national teamsters union. A lot of locals have endorsed Harris. https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2024/09/18/harris-local-teamsters-2024-trump

Another factor in this is time spent in the sun without or with little sunscreen. Really does a number on you over the years. Some people still like getting a tan, but higher SPF sunscreen is available and more people use it.

! Moderator Note Please take care not to malign an entire religion (in violation of rule 2.1) when your target is a political group. i.e. not all Jews are Israelis, and not all Israelis support their government’s actions.

Does it say this?Or is it just an inference that requires you to believe also that carnivores were vegans, too? Moved to ethics, because of the title.

I didn’t consider “Evil" refers to adversity in general, such as natural disasters. to be a definition. As a definition, as you say, it’s pathetically insufficient.