swansont

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.

Can you provide those sources?

What interaction makes a photon wrap around a charged particle? This is an oxymoron. How is a variable speed of light consistent with the various laws of Maxwell’s equations? If there’s no net charge, then you must have a dipole, or quadrupole, or even a higher-order multipole field. What is your evidence of such a field?

After the code was written, was there any intervention by humans? Drift also does this. What is the point?

Wherever the electromagnetic interaction took place that created the photon. e.g. one way of making photons is accelerating a charged particle. The photons leave, but does not take the charge with it.

Which is completely beside the point. Repeating the strawman doesn’t make it any more relevant.

We have a threshold in place, in that we ask for (peer-reviewed) support for claims, and most people comply. We trash claims relying on AI, since they fall short on the trust metric. And most people familiar with science have a BS detector. Yes, it will be a bigger problem, but vigilance will mitigate it to some extent.

Yes, it depends on the observer. Functionally no different than claiming the train can’t be moving and stationary. But in the train’s frame it is stationary and in the station’s frame it is moving. You can’t be moving and stationary if motion is “real” - can’t have <whatever amount> of kinetic energy and zero - it’s the same misunderstanding of relativity

"What are you studying?" is fine. "Why do you need these answers?" should be addressed by the fact that it's in HW help.

This is a subject that comes up from time to time in reported posts, but is rarely on target; it's usually just a complaint that someone said something snarky. There was a thread on this some years ago, but as that got bogged down with some particular instances, I thought just a general discussion might suffice I've imported a few statements from the other thread that are useful I'll add to this that an ad hominem need not include an insult, but merely a personal observation. "You are wrong because bald/old/tall people are never right" is an ad hominem because a personal observation is used instead of refuting some actual point.

According to relativity, two inertial observers will see each other moving while they claim to be at rest. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility. Except, of course, that second statement is 100% wrong - motion is relative. As Markus notes, there is no absolute frame, so it's perfectly fine for one to claim they are at rest and someone else is moving, and for the other observer to claim the same thing. The important issue is that physics works the same for both, and there isn't an experiment you can do to conclude absolute motion or absolute rest for inertial observers.

! Moderator Note The motivation for asking a question is generally not something that the OP needs to provide.

! Moderator Note A couple of points (apologies, this is not to call out exchemist here, because others have raised similar issues) 1. Whether or not this is a bot is not an issue to be raised in a thread; that's off-topic. If one is worried that a member is a bot, one can choose to not respond. 2. Being a bot is not currently a rules violation. It's also not likely to become one, because how does one conclusively determine this? Feel free to open a thread to discuss this. 3. Mods will deal with rules violations, but, considering point 2, please don't report such posts, since there's nothing to be done absent any rule-breaking.

The charge does not need to exist within the field. Maxwell's equations tell you how the field behaves if there is a charge present in a particular volume, and also when a charge is absent. The field behavior of EM radiation is the latter. A parallel-plate capacitor has a field in a region where there is no charge. Similarly, you have magnetic fields in regions where there is no current flow. This is completely consistent with Maxwell's equations. Logically, if there were a charge within a photon, then there would be N charges for N photons. The classical behavior of the field should reflect this, and it decidedly does not.