swansont

I would expect that invoking GR in the explanation of an Atwood machine (the context of the OP’s snark and/or insinuation) would be…unusual. But we’re talking about the functioning of the forum here, not physics Posts have been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/140555-gr-and-energy-conservation-split-from-so-how-long-do-posts-last-that-disprove-energy-conservation/#comment-1311529

All it would have to do is sufficiently bury it, or make so that it’s covered in water. There aren’t that many places where we dig down too far. It’s apparently a Dr. Who reference, in which the Silurians are an ancient reptilian race.

But how widespread is that, and how easily is it erased by geological processes if it happened 100-200 million years ago? IOW, what evidence are we leaving behind that will survive that long, and what is the spatial extent of that? As the article points out, urban areas make up only ~1% of the earth’s surface area

I’v posited in a thread or two about the difficulty of technology arising too early in the earth’s history, because at some point you’d have little in the way of oil, or coal, as a bridge to more advanced ways of generating power. Here’s another related topic https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/25/climate/silurian-hypothesis-another-civilization-before-humans? “If an advanced civilization had lived on Earth millions of years ago, powered themselves with energy and wiped themselves out, would we know? Would they have left traces of their presence etched into the record of our planet?” It looks like they looked at several lines of evidence that might show up, or would be easy to miss. Tectonic activity would mask/erase some evidence, and if we think in three dimensions, much of our planet is unexplored. The Silurian Hypothesis https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/silurian-hypothesis-would-it-be-possible-to-detect-an-industrial-civilization-in-the-geological-record/77818514AA6907750B8F4339F7C70EC6 I wonder about what might be missing, or changed from what we’d expect - missing oil and coal deposits where you’d expect, or nuclear waste, which would not have the natural isotopic abundances, regardless of whether it was still radioactive (not necessarily in some identifiable container, though you’d expect they’d have used one). That would include finding depleted uranium. (along the lines of evidence of the natural reactor found at Oklo) The paper mentions the possibility of finding markers of a society that had a nuclear-weapons exchange

Our new hosting provider has apparently archived older posts and they don’t show up as part of one’s content. But posts that don’t exist don’t show up either

Some of this might be the incremental increase, happening in areas where water scarcity is a bigger problem, and getting caught in deception, such as the Georgia center using 30 million gallons that was unreported (also power use deception) so not wanting to trust the assurances, and the reality that it’s not just a local issue. You read about it happening in one place and realize it can happen in your locality. And “we don’t use that much water” is not zero, as the Utah kerfuffle shows https://greatsaltlakenews.org/latest-news/salt-lake-tribune/can-utah-become-a-data-center-hub-without-draining-its-water-supply

What is this immovable post you are talking about? We know the earth’s rotation rate is not constant. Clocks have tracked this for many decades in astronomical observations Patently absurd. Depends on what system you investigate. If I describe e.g. circular motion, there’s an r that shows up. This isn’t youtube Linear momentum is only conserved when there’s no net external force.

I assume English is not your first language, because these explanations make little sense.

To align with my discussion it would be the cars that came after it. You get an initial jump in productivity, but what happens to the cost of the capability that came in the few decades afterwards? For cars it might be flat, since cars got faster and added some features

I’m not an economist, so I confess to not knowing the distinction, but: costs less over time when adjusted for inflation. i.e. it would have the effect of reducing inflation, since it would tend to cancel other positive i pacts Any of the technological advances show a jump in productivity, but what I’m looking for is after that. Shipping might be one - as technology was refined ships got bigger, so the cost to ship a certain unit (size or weight) of something has likely gone down. Commercial airline travel seems to have followed this; it costs roughly the same to fly as it did decades ago, but that still falls far short of the trajectory of computing power

This points to why your personal expertise is insufficient to make pronouncements about odds and probabilities. If your collection was representative, no place would be “known for” a particular type. If you were here to engage in discussion in good faith we could go into detail, but uploading documents and telling people to read them indicates you are not, and is not how we conduct discussions here (per rule 2.7) This is not a platform for lecturing, and this is the second thread in a row I’ve had to point this out.

It’s true that mass production was a huge productivity increase, but economies of scale from it have had a much more limited effect. I bought a new car in 1984 for $10,500, which as about the average and nowadays a new car averages close to $50k in the US. (to be fair, it’s a bigger car that represents the average) Cars get better mileage and are in many ways safer, and have more bells and whistles, but it’s still subject to inflation. … The background thought for all this is that it seems that inflation at many times has been tamer than predicted and I wonder if it’s because of the deflation from the widespread adoption of semiconductor tech.

Make your case on how any one of these was deflationary

I was contemplating the impact of semiconductor technology over the last 30-40 years, and I don’t think any other advance has had this kind of impact in recent history, and it has to rank up with any of the big advances. (I’m thinking mainly of computers and various displays, but it goes beyond that. Lasers, too) And the impact is not just in straight productivity, it’s also tied in to the fact that the tech is deflationary. A basic personal computer costs about the same today as it did 30-40 years ago, when they started to become ubiquitous, while the capability of them (processing power and memory) If the cost of computing power had risen with inflation or even just been flat, computers would be massively more expensive than they are now, and without that you don’t get the same productivity improvements that we’ve seen. Printing might be one example that rivals the productivity gains but I’m not sure of how the costs scaled as printing advanced. Comments?

~18 min video in the link https://laughingsquid.com/trebuchet-history/ On July 24, 1304 King Edward I of England captured the last stronghold of resistance against English rule in Scotland, the formidable Stirling Castle. But he did not have to storm the castle to make the defenders surrender. He merely had to threaten them with perhaps the most terrifying siege engine in the era… I built a model trebuchet years ago, the arm perhaps a foot long, which I would demonstrate to some visitors to the lab

Scientists tend to be skeptical of numbers presented without reference, and anecdotes presented without systematic study. The religious, and crackpots, and people who don’t understand probability and statistics (these groups have overlap), can find great meaning in them

“Because” is the problem here. If you want to assign a causal relationship you need to obtain actual scientific evidence with a systematic study, and show that it’s not something that happens randomly. Correlation is not causality, and confirmation bias does not even show correlation.

Narratives that tell you how to sort out the way to think about QM are called interpretations. Actual QM, or any competing theory, would be able to make specific predictions. There’s no actual science here. To your question in the title, this belongs in speculations. There is religion here, but it’s what you invoked, no in QM. Anecdotes are not evidence. Coincidences happen all the time.

He can’t legitimately offer something that’s not his.(applies to an open strait of Hormuz, too) Trump’s promises aren’t worth anything anyway. In any event, he’s not going to stand up to Russia. $200 oil is good for Putin (or would be if Ukraine weren’t blowing up Russian tankers and refineries), so that’s not really a threat. Putin is giving Iran satellite intelligence, because that conflict is helping him.

Moderator NoteWe’re not here to debate conspiracy theories or grievances against the institution of science. Not here you’re not. This is a discussion forum, not your soapbox. If you aren’t here for feedback and discussion, then there’s no reason for this to continue.

“We take full responsibility for the confusion and misrepresentation it caused for attendees, including our African partners.” I’m surprised they didn’t blame Biden

I think you can assign the status to a community, if they don’t have access and it’s not by choice. But that does raise an issue - what we consider aspects of poverty (in the US at least) have changed because of access to “modern” conveniences like refrigeration and indoor plumbing. Seems to me a lot of these are tied to health outcomes. You can be content with your life, but not having e.g. reliable access to clean water is IMO a sign of being impoverished

I will note that there was a request to explain this, and you have still not done so.

There’s an attitude of having money meaning you can do whatever you want, i.e. responsibility is for other people (which has become more rampant in the US with Trump being in charge and participating) so why do what’s best for all? You can just buy a few politicians, which is the cheaper option.

Good point; I recall some discussions from long ago where being poor was conflated with being destitute, and I disagree with that I think poverty is not having basic needs met - food, clothing, shelter, basic healthcare, etc. but it can also be viewed as a severe restriction of choice/options, i.e. being kept from doing basic things because you lack the means. Where you live, what you eat, whether to seek medical treatment, etc. because of the means at your disposal. No, it’s not, but if you have wealth you generally have more options regarding your well-being, so anything having a negative impact on it is more likely to be from choices made rather than being forced upon you, so I think there’s a correlation.