swansont

I was going to leave a pair of shoes at the end of my driveway to make it look like I was taken to the passers-by, but it was raining and I didn’t want them to get wet. Trump wanted to get raptured but the holy escalator at The UN knew better and stopped working.

One post is not a flood. It wasn’t the same type. And the system flagged it, though I had assumed flagged posts were hidden until approved (they are displayed with a pinkish background, just like hidden posts are)

You didn’t provide the calculation and hadn’t provided any reasoning behind it, and now you’re saying it’s proportional but not why or how you arrive at 10%. Nor have you explained why you think it would be behaving like Oumuamua and not Borisov. In addition, we don’t know anything about Oumuamua on its inbound journey as it was discovered some 40 days after perihelion.

Zero. Work is force (dot) displacement. No displacement, no work. No work, no power.

I don’t see a calculation, and as I’ve explained, such discussion doesn’t fit within our rules.

As a science discussion this is bad faith/trolling, so I’ve moved it to philosophy (as opposed to the trash can) where I can ignore it so long as nobody reports any rules violations.

That would all be based on the notion that Prajna is hallucinating all of this, in which case they are also hallucinating the rejection of the notion. Science is based (in part) on rejecting solipsism, and also if people want to discuss solipsism the philosophy section is easily found.

I gave an example to clarify what I meant and help you parse it, but you apparently ignored it.

I’m getting an uneasy feeling here. Your original question was about detecting a specified acceleration. That was addressed. But now there’s discussion that’s not centered on measurement precision, and a somewhat cryptic prediction that does not reference how it was produced. It hints at an agenda. Further, your username suggests you’ve posted here before under a similarly-named account.

What does that have to do with anything? Things don’t have to be self-aware to exist.

I thought his theory was from the 1970s. Not mass, since mass isn’t conserved (so it’s harder to say it’s missing in a nuclear reaction) but other properties, like energy and angular momentum, and the fact that the electron energy has a continuous spectrum, which is related to conservation of momentum. “made of energy”? If the model is flawed, any calculation that stems from it is suspect. Is “container for the energy” your phrasing or his? You’re using descriptions that I would not expect from someone who had studied physics at any advanced level Yes, and it’s this explanation that we’re asking for. The actual physics at play. No it won’t. Our rules preclude building on non-mainstream physics, without providing the solid foundation first. You’ve got to establish the validity of the model first.

Things don’t have to involve a conscious observer to know they are there. i.e. e.g. the moon doesn’t disappear when out of my sight, or I’m asleep. I can see tides, or take a picture.

Yes.

Optical illusions affect people, too. The impact is real, even if not based on something physical, but it’s our mind doing the heavy lifting. We can also look at a definition of real in terms of not being just a concept. So maybe something to consider in being “real” is whether it exists independently of the mind.

But this was first observed in July, and it will be leaving the solar system in less than a year. And was 250x larger than the number you cited

I think Linkey is allergic to actually citing facts and providing sources. Also from https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/alcohol-consumption-per-capita/country-comparison/ And given the slice of the US that is puritanical, the ones that drink, drink a bit more. I’ve lived in places that didn’t sell alcohol (even beer) on Sundays, and there are a fair number of “dry” counties and municipalities (which means there are likely still moonshiners out there and certainly home brewers) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dry_communities_by_U.S._state

We’ve been doing this with chemistry for a while - knowing what makes similar bonds and constructing new molecules, so it’s not surprising to do it with something more complex. I imagine the advances in chemistry would have happened much faster if computers had been available, Were they predicting the effects, or is that something they had to do by trial and error? Saying the need data for antivirals and vaccines suggests there’s still trial and error.

Which only matters if you know where it started, and you also have to know what other accelerations it is undergoing, to that precision. IOW, you can’t “lose” anything inside the error bars At 50 km/s, it will travel ~1.5 billion km in that time, modified by whatever net acceleration it undergoes. 10,000 km is literally lost in the noise.

It’s by inspection. If the reported speed is 52 km/s, then it’s fair to conclude that they don’t know it to much better precision. You need a lot more digits (even with a longer observation time) to see a perturbation on the order of less than 1 m/s I doubt you could discern it from deviations of the trajectory, either. At our distance, the acceleration from the sun is 0.006 m/s^2, so the anomaly is still very small. We simply don’t have or get the precision we need

Right. I think the OP is asking about whether the acceleration can be detected. Which is a “no” given the precision of measurement.

I didn’t say anything about chatbots, and you didn’t provide the clarification I asked for.

What do you mean by replace? The evolution of AI or the “next big thing” that tech will try to sell us as being must-have but never lives up to its billing, like blockchain, NFTs and the internet-of-things?

v=at An acceleration of 2 x 10^-8 m/s^2 for a duration of just over 3 years (10^8 s) would result in a speed change of about 2 m/s. The current speed is 58 km/s, so detecting such an anomaly would depend on the precision of measurement and length of time of observation for the curious, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3I/ATLAS The comet or the acceleration anomaly? I’m assuming the OP was asking about the latter. If that’s what you meant, do you have a reference?

Which is why I am fond of asking people to define what they mean by “real” when it comes up. They have physical effects, but you still can’t hand me a shadow, or a hole. That points to the definition of real, in this case, being “not an illusion” rather than “physically exists”

No. The laws of thermodynamics prevent it. Even if you gave all the necessary information instead of some vague statement, the answer will still be no, but then one could give more details about why.