swansont

I’m not aware of “fairness” being an element of evolutionary theory, or even that this is an issue of fairness.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/04/07/ask-ethan-how-fast-could-life-have-evolved-in-the-universe/ Turns out that it’s not too long, but unlikely for carbon-based life, since building up carbon takes time — carbon is from stellar cycles, not supernovae “the very first stars of all should form somewhere around 50-100 million years after the Big Bang.” “It's quite likely that only a few hundred million years after the first stars turned on — by time the Universe is 300 to 500 million years old — we had rocky planets forming around the most enriched stars at the time.” —- The next step would be to consider if life could continue, since you’d have a fair number of supernovae going off in the early universe, which isn’t conducive to life if they happen nearby. You certainly don’t want your planet to be orbiting a huge star that’s going to blow up just as the planet has cooled down and is ready for life.

The eccentricity makes it elliptical. The axial tilt gives us the figure-8 shape https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/this-is-how-the-sun-moves-in-the-sky-throughout-the-year/ “If we only had axial tilt to contend with, and our orbit was a perfect circle, the path the Sun traced out in the sky would be a truly perfect figure-8: symmetryic about both the horizontal and vertical axes. If we lived on an untilted planet that had an elliptical orbit, the Sun’s path through the sky would simply be an ellipse: where the eccentricity would be the only contributor to how the Sun moves.”

You put these statements in quotation marks. What is the source? Quantum tunneling is not electron excitation

Hydrogen is not a fuel, in this sense, it’s a storage medium, like a battery. You need to produce the hydrogen (in most cases), and it’s net energy negative. It’s only as “green” as the method of production; hydrogen made via burning fossil fuels isn’t a solution.

! Moderator Note Where is the speculation (that complies with the rules of this section)?

Just in case you missed it, the suggestions you have been getting use air for insulation. A key is that the air doesn't circulate, so there's no convection. The solid material in insulation, bubble wrap and foam, etc. is for structural purposes (maintaining air pockets and possibly holding itself up)

And if crackpottery like flat-earth tried to do the same thing it would fail miserably. To have a flat earth but the same observations, requires changes in physics, which has a domino effect (to mix our metaphors) because now even more pieces don't fit together. You might possibly find a working model of gravity for a flat earth, but you need the sun to revolve around the earth, which doesn't fit with our models of gravity, and now you have an issue with planetary orbits. If the sun isn't a sphere, you now need to fit that with nuclear physics and why fusion is occurring. If it is, why is that so, but the earth is flat? This doesn't work, and the ideas perpetuate either because the adherents don't do this closer inspection of how the idea fits in with the rest of science, or they simply ignore the problems

That doesn’t deny the existence of incels; it points to a possible cause and also perhaps a solution. Ah, a Dale Carnegie graduate, I see.

The OP made no mention of being in any of these institutions, so that seems irrelevant, and I don’t see where the existence of involuntary celibacy was questioned. And the OP’s question was not ignored; there were responses pointing out that this is not an issue for legislation. We could discuss why in further detail, but nobody went in that direction.

This is not at all clear to me (and I’m thinking you meant latitude, since we don’t have time zones based on altitude) If the sun is overhead at one location over a flat surface, it would not be overhead at some other location some distance away. This is the reason we have time zones. Why wouldn’t the sun would rise and set on a flat earth?

But the underlying issue is the datasets. The algorithm can’t discern veracity of information; it relies on what it’s fed, and those choices are made by humans. The “AI” isn’t intelligent. It’s not thinking. It’s just a fancy search engine.

Interesting use of “only” The “past few centuries” encompasses post-Newtonian physics, cosmology, a fair amount of geology, most of chemistry and all of modern biology IOW, the bulk of science. The author takes the same approach as you; “mind” as a proxy for all of science, and no concrete examples of how these alternate approaches would lead to success or how this “proactive role for human consciousness” would have any impact on any other fields of study. Since this is just a repetition, it does nothing to illuminate the issue or answer any questions.

Alter2Ego has been banned for preaching. (but not for saying, “Hark!”)

And now there’s a journal article declaring this to be the case https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5 We argue that these falsehoods, and the overall activity of large language models, is better understood as bullshit in the sense explored by Frankfurt (On Bullshit, Princeton, 2005): the models are in an important way indifferent to the truth of their outputs.

Then it should be no problem linking to a few of these peer-reviewed studies

ChatGPT is not a scientific resource. Contact someone in a country roughly diametrically opposed to you. Get a photo of the sky. You should see roughly the same thing on a flat earth. At night, you see different stars. It’s day there when it’s night where you are, and vice-versa. Neither is consistent with a flat earth. That shows it’s circular, not necessarily spherical.

Success as a criminal, perhaps, because white-collar crimes aren’t prosecuted as readily or fervently as other crimes, and money allows one to avoid lots of issues, but successful as a businessman? He has repeatedly failed. Bankruptcies left and right. His personal success has been the ability to extract money from his ventures and leave others holding the bag. His “success” at politics has been one election, aided by Russian interference and criminal acts.

Ethylene glycol doesn't break down? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_glycol "Ethylene glycol ... breaks down in air in about 10 days and in water or soil in a few weeks."

! Moderator Note Rupert Sheldrake is…not mainstream. If you think this is a matter of quantum physics, you will need to provide the connection. Moved to speculations. Also note that advertising is against our rules; posting to bring awareness of your book is a violation.

It’s 2024. So it’s been 7 years; chemicals do degrade over time.

So, no examples? Agrees with you? You keep talking about science needing alternatives to materialism.

Are there any areas of science where the subjective has had success?

So what is the subjective explanation, and how do we know it’s correct?

It brings to mind the quote from Margaret Atwood — 'Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.'