swansont

What grows, if it has no mass or energy You can’t conclude “soul” until you eliminate all other possible causes for emotion, or etc.

I would add that if you ones a little down in the queue, after we’ve spam-banned, report. We still see the hidden posts for a while, so “recent posts” still shows us all the spam, and we might miss something buried on page 4 or 5 I don’t think it’s that. I still think it’s getting as many pages to show fraudulent phone numbers for the scammers so that searches (especially the AI summary) point to them, so they can fool you into calling them and giving up credit card and/or account info. Because they tried different formatting tactics, I think it means they know not all the posts will appear, owing to spam filters. I also think they’re counting on many target sites being unmoderated

I don’t have any insight into that. I know the CAPTCHA was upgraded, but there are sites out there selling ways to defeat the safeguards. My estimation is that the filter caught 3/4 of the spammers but only half of the spam posts. Spammers that filled up their 5 post limit used different formats and the filter would only flag some of them. I’m guessing they are doing that to increase the odds that something gets through. If the algorithm is learning what counts as spam then it should become more efficient

No. Not even from the same location, or some are using a VPN to appear to be from somewhere else, though many were from India (though I only checked a small fraction of the posts)

>500 flagged posts when I logged in 45 minures ago. Slowly spam-banning them, and those that didn’t get caught. Plus they keep showing up every couple of minutes

FYI, since we had an influx today, that the spam filters caught some, but not all, of the posts.

It’s your job to show that it’s not.

There’s no debate. The “wisest of Indians” don’t dictate what is considered science, nor what our rules of discussion are, and you are the one posting here; you don’t get to pass the buck.

Calling something science doesn’t make it science. In any event, we’re using the definition that requires rigor and falsifiability. That is, it involves the objective. Subjective realizations need not apply.

How do uncharged photons give rise to the charge in an electron? How are they confined? What is the size of the electron and how does this compare to experiment?

There’s a sandbox area for testing such things Cubic structure made of…what? How does the proton mass depend on this? What do photons have to do with protons. What is the confining structure that gives you a standing wave? You’re free to explain how it’s not numerology. And it is a personal theory, even if it’s not yours, but you have to be prepared to defend it.

When do you plan to do so?

I’d ask you to back this up with a link, but you can’t. The law/regulation was repealed in 2009 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_09_1059

Which assumes we surf youtube.

It looks like it’s a study about bias that uses cherry-picked examples. Ironic. One example is that they didn’t ascribe the tides to gravity…before Newton came up with the concept. Another was biologists ascribing a behavior to biology, rather than physics, around the time that atomic theory was proposed by Dalton, and before it had really become ingrained. If those were the best examples they could come up with, I can’t think there’s much to this. You can’t ascribe phenomena to influences you aren’t aware of. Proposing something completely new isn’t the default, especially when the data are scarce and no firm conclusion could be drawn — we tend to decry e.g. ascribing UAPs to being aliens for this very reason. You generally need lots of data to see patterns. Scant data doesn’t allow one to rule out statistical anomalies. You’d end up chasing statistical flukes, which could be an even bigger waste of time.

Nobody posted an update or link

When I was working, it was reading journal articles and (mostly) going to conferences. I also served on a review team for a couple of DARPA programs. When I was in school it was more about getting up to speed than staying current, but papers and conferences, too.

Of your personal data. As far as I can tell, there is nothing I can delete. We don’t collect much in the way of personal data.

Archived posts don’t show up in the search.

Moderator NoteMaterial for discussion must be posted here. Not via links or uploads.

Moderator NoteRules require material for discussion be posted here, not via links or uploads. And: yeah, right. (In any event, there isn’t a Nobel for math)

My boss and I were discussing this, back in the day, and he suggested it’s easier to imagine it if you imagine it’s 100 doors. You pick one, and then 98 doors are opened up. Was your 1% chance correct, or is it that one door that’s still closed.

The clocks would show the same time if they’re in the same frame of reference. What synchronization? What phase?

They do seem different, which is why it was such a revolutionary concept. But we now have the capability to measure it. It’s why e.g. the mass of protons + neutrons + electrons is greater than the mass of an atom made from them

Nothing to do with fuzzy logic, it’s about properly applying logic. There’s added information (the revealed door is not chosen randomly) If you want to discuss something, post it. “Teasing” rapidly becomes tiresome.