swansont

Alleged? If someone who was under 35, or not a natural born citizen, declared to be running for president, we would not be talking about alleged violation of Constitutional requirements. If Obama declared, we would not be saying that he was ineligible because he allegedly already served two terms.

You have listed three spatial dimensions. This clarifies nothing for me. You can have situations where a you only need to look at one, or two dimensions. But it’s got three spatial dimensions It’s the 2-D surface of a sphere, which is a three-dimensional object. Why not just just say that? You can’t have 1/r^2 if you’re excluding r

What is 2+2 dimensional? Two of space and two of time? You need 3 spatial dimensions to get the inverse square law. The behavior requires a 2-D surface that depends on radial distance, i.e. three dimensions. If you only had two, the interaction would drop off as 1/r https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/gravity-extra-dimensions/ There is no such thing as a 2D sphere

As exchemist has noted, you ignore the role of observation. Science must agree with experiment. Logic can only take one so far. "logical" ideas have been discarded because of disagreement with experiment - it was considered logical that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter objects, but this is not how nature behaves. Science does not explain why things are the way they are - that's a job for philosophy. The job of science is to describe how nature behaves.

Not much in technical areas. He didn’t actually found Tesla, and has said some really stupid things (remember his idea to send a sub in to rescue people from a flooded cave?). And by many accounts he’s a terrible boss.

This isn’t a small detail to gloss over. What is the mass of a black hole GR requires to do this, and how does it compare with your prediction? You’ll have to quantify this as well.And show that photons feel attraction from magnetic fields. Electrons have quasar events?

! Moderator Note You’ve been asked several times why a photon would orbit. Instead of forging ahead with more nonsense, you need to address points that have been raised. If you don’t, this thread will be closed.

Positive or negative convention? Do you understand what is meant by convention? It points one way in some places and the other way in others. But there’s no charge. Then you need to provide a mathematical model of what this means (not just drawings), and evidence to support it

No, it decidedly is not.

My two requests are there for you, or anyone, to read. This is a thread about things evolving, which was the context was for your complaint “AI systems don't evolve and can't EVER evolve“ Obviously, a program such as an AI algorithm can’t change until it exists. And if subsequently changes without further intervention, then “changing all by itself” is valid description of the process, regardless of your posturing. If this has nothing to do with evolution, why did you bring it up? You appear to keep trying to drag the discussion away from the topic at hand and forcing it into another direction, despite the invitation to start a new thread (and other requests to stay on-topic)

Don’t pretend I didn’t have to ask twice “Usually, though, the term ‘agency’ is used in a much narrower sense to denote the performance of intentional actions.” So agency requires intent. Why does there need to be intent for this to happen? Where is the “agency” in biological evolution?

The positive and negative on the scope, or the graph, does not indicate charge.

And? If there was some statement saying there was no selection in any of this, I missed it.

I like that one of the challenges was that TFG’s claim that he won the 2020 election means he’s ineligible under the 22nd amendment. It would be fun to watch him try and respond to that.

Please define what you mean by agency. Repetition is not definition. I don’t know why you are sidestepping this.

“will” is a prediction, i.e. something thar will happen in the future. As discussed, it requires more capability than we currently have. When quantum computers are sufficiently powerful they will be able to do the factoring necessary to break current encryption protocols. We are years away from this happening. Can you see why these statements are not in conflict with each other?

You’re going to have to define what you mean by “gains agency” because this seems trivially wrong.

The fallacy pointed out so well by Monty Python 'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. IOW, not all artifacts are computers; a marble is not a valid substitute.

Does it mention marbles?

Demolishing yet another claim nobody has made. You do know you have the power to start your own thread on the topic, right?

Again: is there a point to this?

Since you acknowledge that this was replaced by the dynamic theory, what is the point of repeating this?

Direction convention ≠ charge convention

The Electric field extends in both directions; “positive” is merely a convention of direction, and does not indicate anything about charge. Since the photon is not localized to a point, both directions of field exist simultaneously.

You have not established that there is a positive or negative side of a photon. What is your evidence that this happens? You keep making more and more claims but without supporting them.