swansont

Arguing that a program couldn't include the capability of modifying its code or function is ludicrously ignorant. The argument is that a program could include the capability of changing its code. Teleology is a straw man.

What does this have to do with the geodesic not being a straight line? No, that’s not accurate (it’s a cross product, and not from its “original point”), but it also doesn’t apply.

It depends on the properties of the material. Some transmit thermal IR (polyethylene does) and it looks like mylar transmits a decent amount near 10-15 microns https://www.researchgate.net/figure/IR-transmission-spectra-of-polymeric-substrates-Mylar-with-thickness-d-40-mm-1-and_fig2_327932890

It’s not difficult to find sources that say there is nothing to this https://www.health.com/condition/stroke/solar-flare-health-effects https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/science-verify/solar-flares-geomagnetic-storms-cmes-do-not-affect-people-humans-on-earth/536-9d58a725-6c74-4efd-85e8-7cbf1b3a55fb

In principle, yes, if you have an array on the scale of the GW wavelength https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.00996

The nature of the property is matter of metaphysics, i.e. philosophy. Science deals with how nature behaves.

Counterpoint: no, it's not. You choose to interpret it that way, which is followed by ranting about how stupid the notion is. But it's your choice. Even in biological evolution, the origin of life is excluded from the theory - that's abiogenesis. So your insistence that a program has to create itself is just performative nonsense.

The sun has energy owing to its mass (mass is a form of energy), and the gravity (gravitational potential energy). It undergoes reactions which emit radiation, which also has energy. The term 'solar energy' merely points out the source of the energy. The radiation isn't part of the sun anymore.

So what? You’re rebutting a claim nobody has made.

It’s not my thread, and I’m really not in the mood to tolerate you being obtuse. (I am reminded of the phrase The failure mode of “clever” is “asshole”) So don’t expect my continued participation in this little game

Why not use a word that means change over time? Really? Where is the contradiction?

Do I, in fact, expect this? What's your evidence of this? Remember, it isn't true just because said so - that's not an argument. Back up what you say. (I read that somewhere) Also, a Geiger counter could be used to measure a length, under certain conditions. Using it as a Geiger counter. It's not difficult to envision it, IMO, leveraginge the 1/r^2 nature of a point source of radioactivity.

It's not stupid if you consider that evolution is merely change over time. We speak of language evolving, or technology evolving. Of course AI is going to evolve. It just won't necessarily be Darwinian. It's not at all apparent to me that, even if one restricted this to the narrow definition, that computer code COULD NOT be written to modify itself. What is the restriction making this impossible?

OK. Why would you expect a Geiger counter to measure length? How is it you've heard the term Geiger counter but not know what it is such that this would be a reasonable question? No, not really

Is this directed anyone in particular? As a rhetorical exercise, I fail to see the point you’re making.

Take it up in the physics section. You made an assertion, and you were wrong.

<snort> Try again. Energy is defined as the capacity to do work.

Why would it be? What causes this?

Tunneling is not an issue of superposition, and yes, reflection is possible even though the particle classically has enough energy to overcome the barrier. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectangular_potential_barrier#E_>_V0

Elegant is not really a consideration. The model has to work, i.e. describe how nature behaves. It's like Huxley's comment about a beautiful theory being slain by an ugly fact.

You can't stipulate something that isn't true. Charge is involved with the creation of electric fields, but the charge is not contained within the field. Nature is under no obligation to make sense to you. The mass of a photon is zero. There is no orbital velocity. You may have a conjecture that there is one, but you need experimental evidence to support it. Thus far you've got bupkus.

So a photon with a 1 micron wavelength will rotate 1000x as fast as a photon with 1 mm wavelength? And they have the same angular momentum?

What is the model, and what is the evidence that it’s correct?

! Moderator Note You agreed to follow the rules of the forum when you joined, so a post from a moderator should not require any justification; it’s not for you to decide such things. One of the rules of the forum is that opening up an account to evade a ban is not permitted. Yes. You were not precise in identifying these letters as archaic. Are you really claiming that the context of current vs archaic was not understood? I said the language of science was English. Science is a recent, not archaic, and this is why your posturing is a bad faith argument.

Spin is explained in a number of places. The short version is that it’s intrinsic angular momentum. Then you shouldn’t propose that the electric field contains charge. It’s not a decay, as such, since it’s a reaction. Then you need to explain this asymmetry in behavior, including the violation of conservation of angular momentum, lepton number and charge, and provide evidence of it.