swansont

Moderator NoteThis is a rather severe violation of rule 2.1, specifically “Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited.” You’ve earned any and all scorn heaped on you in the replies. In addition, advertising is prohibited, as is sockpuppetry The nonsense about attacks from the spiritual plane is merely pathetically amusing, seeing as this is a science site.

AI certainly has use in robotics, but I suspect that’s much more machine learning than LLMs. Anyway, this is a discussion forum, not a blog. Was there something you wanted to discuss? P.S. I hope you get feedback before you spend too much time going down what might be an unproductive path

No, not so much. Opinions are subjective. That which is objective is not opinion. No, the e.g. results of an experiment are available for all to see, and (in principle) recreate. Even as far as religious discussions go, it would be in the form of documents everyone could read. Science asks for credible objective evidence and thus far nobody has been able to provide any. Well, then, let’s see it. Just claiming you have it means nothing. It starts with defining what the soul is.

Moderator NoteThe question was answered. Many times. No need to answer it again.

Odd to post this on a discussion forum You’re not, but you’ve declared you don’t want a conversation. But soapboxing isn’t permitted here.

Oh, please. Criticizing what you’ve posted does not constitute a personal attack, and you have been held to the same standard as everyone else who posts here. Whether you feel demeaned by being told your conjecture fails to measure up is something you need to cope with. It’s not anyone else’s problem. People are not required to treat you with kid gloves to protect your fragile ego. And, perhaps more importantly: you do not dictate how the site is moderated.

I have not. That last sentence, after the ellipsis, doesn’t appear on that page, but no matter, because 1. You can’t ignore the other things written there* and in the speculations forum guidelines, and 2. You haven’t presented a model. A physics model would have math and give testable predictions. *including the very first statement, that says we reserve the right to enforce this policy as we see fit so that people may not use the letter of the rule to defeat the spirit of the rule. As I showed earlier, it’s in the rules that specifically apply to the speculations forum I never claimed anything about you ignoring fundamental atmospheric physics. I wrote this? I think not. That quote is from exchemist.

Nowhere? https://scienceforums.net/guidelines/ Rule 2.10 says “Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations)” and Phi afforded you the opportunity to show this wasn’t a non-mainstream idea/pet theory, which you haven’t been able to do. Speculations has additional rules, the first of which is “Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.” There’s also an explainer that expands on this https://scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

That’s very ad-hoc, and one needs to explain how “something” happens at the remote location at the same time, and how a random result just happens to always show correlation with the measurement made that also produces a random result. They aren’t simultaneous. It’s just that you can’t perceive the delay, which would be at best a few nanoseconds if you’re ~30-50 cm from the mirror.

I think a rudimentary analysis would show the incredible difficulty of moving a mass of 6 x 10^24 kg out of its orbit to anywhere else local, much less a star that’s light-years away. We can get payloads of tens of thousands of kg away from earth. Invoking nuclear rockets doesn’t address the issue in any meaningful way. Proposing we do it by magic would be only slightly less rigorous.

My focus here is to make sure the rules are followed, and this is the second thread where you’ve been told that we discuss things that have reached the “science” stage, rather than the concepts of a plan stage, which is better suited to a dorm room at 2AM, possibly with chemical enhancements

Then you need to come up with a way to measure it. That hurdle must be overcome before you move on, rather than treating it as a trifle to be solved later. It’s not a theory without a model and a way to falsify it. Theory has a specific meaning in science, and it doesn’t equate to conjecture or guess. Earlier thinkers weren’t posting here. We have a reasonably clear description of what belongs in speculations.

Let’s see

So by your own argument, perception and curiosity do not move you into the realm of science. (The latter requires objective observation and some kind of testable hypothesis - science doesn’t do “proof” as such) But this is a science discussion site. Your proposal needs to be developed further before it fulfills our requirements.

It’s what we require, because vague claims leave too much wiggle room about whether the conjecture has merit, and you end up with something that “explains” everything in a completely/mostly useless way.

It’s not medical advice, as such. We’d discuss how e.g. GLP-1 drugs control blood sugar or the approach behind chemotherapy. It’s not diagnosing a problem or recommending a course of action for an individual. The problem here is that it appears to be no more than a WAG. There’s no substance to the proposal, and absent that it’s just trolling.

Theorists in physics are still physicists. In any event, the board’s rules require it. You need to be able to formulate some way it’s testable.

I think I have accounts on both but there’s a lot of traffic, so there’s rarely a chance to contribute. And I was on Bad Astronomy but left after it merged with Universe Today for similar reasons. On one of them (I think it was BAUT) I had serious issues with how they acted; there was someone who posted some nonsense but some of the post was legit, and I had the audacity to point that out. No capacity for nuance. (IIRC they were the same group who didn’t believe in significant digits). The episodes reinforced my feeling that we do a better job of moderating here.

Put a 225 lb weight on it

Why would this work? What is the possible damage it could cause and hiw would you mitigate it? You need to do more than give some wild guess.

History, rhyming again…

This is word salad. Layers of frequency and dimension? Experiencing resonance? How can anything “overwhelm reality”? Asserting facts is kinda necessary for a theory. You need to have it be testable - making specific predictions that can be compared to experiment or observation. How does one do this with your proposal? What specific predictions does it make? How is it falsifiable?

All electrons are spin 1/2 particles with a -1 fundamental charge. How would that be “diluted” by having an infinite number of them? How are Newton’s laws of motion “diluted” by having an infinite number of entities? Or the theory of evolution?

How about you provide a few worked example of how your equation might be applied.

Moderator NotePosting to advertise your website is against the rules. The link has been removed. Please review our rules, especially the one on AI https://scienceforums.net/guidelines/