swansont

In TNG there was a crystalline life form that called the humans/humanoids “ugly bags of mostly water” (Home Soil)

You need to have your answers be outside of the quote box https://scienceforums.net/topic/135919-using-the-quote-function-2025-edition/ “To break up the quoted material, to respond to a specific section, put the cursor in the text box and hit return/enter a few times, and it will split the quote box in two, with a place for you to respond in between them.”

Moderator NoteThis violates rule 2.7, which says that material for discussion must be posted, not linked, and rule 2.13 which prohibits the content from being AI We are happy to discuss human-created content

One thread per topic, please

I’m not even sure about organic chemistry, and I don’t think that it’s a fundamental biological requirement that life be based on the building blocks we observe on earth. Organisms have to have some way to utilize energy, with an intake and expulsion of waste. Those trace back to thermodynamics anyway. I also think that some aspects of biology would get rewritten if it’s realized that they are, in fact, earth-centric. The earth case would be a subset. Nothing new there, really, since refinement has already happened in other disciplines when we learned new things (e.g. phlogiston, atomic models) But I also think that there’s a chunk of biology that’s “applied biology” and it’s already understood that it’s specific to earth. I think physics and chemistry have an advantage in that there are no big holes in them stemming from us only being on earth. We can observe physics and chemistry happening elsewhere, to some extent, because photons get to us. There aren’t any gaps in the periodic table, and the standard model’s deficiencies don’t seem to include missing particles that readily interact. What we learn that’s new in them happens as we dive deeper into them and push boundaries But biology can only look at what’s happening in a certain slice of conditions, so it might very well be far less complete. There might be low-hanging fruit out there on some alien tree that’s just not available to us (yet)

On the contrary, the rules of biology should be the same everywhere, it’s the results that can differ. It would be like arguing that two rivers aren’t the same because the rules of fluid flow vary. And we don’t assert that - we realize that it’s the variables and boundary conditions that differ. Biology has lots of variables and boundary conditions.

Citations need to be complete (issue and page numbers) and links to the should be included Same thing - proper citation and links needed

Thus far, the only rule broken has been one case of opening a second account. I did a spot check of a citation and it was legit. Reporting things that aren’t rules violations adds an extra burden on the mods.

Which aren’t the issues I raised. Again, I didn’t raise “exponential energy” concerns, though energy concerns exist If you have a target in mind, i.e. the star you mentioned, it will take a certain amount of energy to achieve whatever speed you desire relative to it, in order to make it “(almost) no time” And you have to accelerate the rocket payload, casing, engine and all the fuel. If you want to go faster, that’s even more fuel you have to accelerate. But it will also take time to accelerate to that speed and to reduce it at the end of the trip, which could be quite restrictive if you have a fragile biological payload like a human. I can’t be right about a point I didn’t make The calculation you need to do is how long it takes to get to .99c (or whatever; you don’t actually specify it) accelerating at 1g (or whatever, since you didn’t specify this in the OP, either) You’re “rebutting” a straw man One issue I raised is like this: At v = 0.995c, gamma is ~10. A 10 LY trip takes 1 year at this speed But it takes about a year to get to that speed at 1g, and another year to get to rest. So your 1 year trip is actually closer to 3 years. And arguably that’s not “almost no time” and those issues are present even if you can increase gamma to 100, or 1000. The trip won’t be shorter than ~2 years.

We’re watching

“They” never say who “they” refers to, which is quite convenient for “them” but in science discussion it’s better to actually cite a source because anyone with reasonable competence in physics will know that massive objects can’t travel at the speed of light. So “they” aren’t competent. The complications you leave out are how you get to the speed near c, and the time dilation effects that will make your elapsed time much less than those you left behind. These are not trivial details.

This has happened before, and predates the rise of LLMs. Often as an excuse to start posting spammy links that are “helpful” responses to inquiries

Can you give more detailed citations? Journal, page number etc. With a link.

I’m not sure exactly what “physics-informed learning methods” are, but machine learning is already used to analyze data There are many examples, and details in the footnotes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning_in_physics If data are truly random, then there’s no pattern to discover. If data are sparse, the statistical uncertainty is large. I’m not sure how ML overcomes that. I think the strength of processing is in finding correlations in large amounts of data.

The Syndrome syndrome. When everyone is super, nobody is. One of the reasons to categorize is to make distinctions, and this renders it pointless. So you just kick the can down the road, and have to come up with some new description that allows you to make distinctions.

You seem to think that this is a platform for you to lecture about your ideas. That’s not how it works. What you believe, i.e. your opinion, doesn’t matter. It’s what you can show. And being questioned is part of the process, especially when you aren’t forthcoming with pertinent details. And being told you’ve made errors isn’t being belittled. You have a fairly long history of getting pushback on your ideas, so none of this should be a surprise. Freedom of speech, as it’s typically invoked, is a right that says the government can’t punish you for what you say or censor you. That doesn’t apply here. If you have no new argument to make, then we’re done here. Don’t bring this subject up again.

No. And AI-generated content is not a good forum post.

Moderator NoteNo. Literally nobody asked for that. We want to engage in discussion, with a human It was hinted at before, but I will make it explicit: AI content as the substance of posts is not allowed here, as explained in rule 2.13 https://scienceforums.net/guidelines/

Try to understand that I am not doing any analysis or conversion involving Oumuamua. I did a unit conversion from a paper, and showed that your math was wrong. That would matter for the number at perihelion, i.e. the maximum effect. Not the number at some other distance. The number at e.g. 3AU is going to be the number at 3AU, and it will have that number regardless of the perihelion value. The perihelion value could be used as the benchmark, so if that’s how you’ve done your analysis, that’s perfectly fine, but it doesn’t have any impact whatsoever on the measurements that give us the upper limit on the Atlas acceleration, at its distance when the data were collected. And the point I’ve been trying to make is that your numbers are bigger than that. Bigger than the upper limit. That means your analysis doesn’t work. And exchemist is right about the difficulty in getting you to share information. You post numbers and then yell at me for citing them, when it turns out you didn’t provide the entire picture. It took you two freaking pages to provide the numbers that you could have posted at the beginning of the discussion, as if it’s our fault we can’t read your mind. IOW, outgassing can completely explain the acceleration, which has an upper limit that’s smaller than this by almost a factor of two.

You said you made this correction but not why it’s necessary. Atlas hasn’t yet reached perihelion, so how does the perihelion matter on the inbound leg of the trip? I did not. I stated the value from the paper and estimated the value in SI units (I didn’t have a calculator handy, so I did a rough conversion in my head). 1 AU is 1.5 x 10^11m and d^ is (86400s)^2 or about 7 x 10^9 s^2 3 x 10^-10 au/d^2 is thus about 45 m/7 x 10^9s or about 10^-8 m/s^2, which is the number I gave. If you put it in a calculator, it’s 6 x 10^-9 m/s^2 IOW, your value is 10x too big Do you understand what an upper limit is? That the answer will not be any larger than this, so any model showing a larger number is wrong. As I showed above, this is incorrect Too bad. Following the rules is not optional. I had specified “a similarly-named account” I have no desire to get into it, but suffice to say there are lots of examples of people opening new accounts after they were banned, that will not win any awards for cleverness, so any suggestion that it would not happen is contradicted by quite a lot of empirical data.

You replied to me, but I didn’t say the quoted bit you included here. How does this address my question about what grows?

I responded to a post you made; you updated your numbers in a later post, so no, I had not read them yet. But now I have to ask: what changed? A day ago you had one prediction: And now those numbers are much smaller. But, they are still larger than the upper bound Thanks for this; owing to the new hosting, all of the old Bjarne posts were archived and unsearchable, but that thread has a link to an old post, which helps. This is a lie. You admitted in that other thread that you had posted under the user name Bjarne.

Your prediction of .67 x 10-6 is 670 times larger than the observed value of 1 x 10-9 The correction that’s needed is for distance from the sun, since your value is for 2.5 AU, and the observed value was for a slightly greater distance. But, as I pointed out, if the 1/r^2 scaling that you used is applied, that only buys you a small correction - around a factor of 4. i.e. your prediction appears to be wrong. And yet you posted a diatribe about whether that scaling was correct So, if that scaling is correct, your prediction is wrong by more than two orders of magnitude

The 2.5 AU is your number. I am criticizing your analysis. So? I’m referring to your analysis of Atlas. Using your numbers and scaling. If you think the scaling is wrong, tell us what will happen further away? Will it account for the factor of 670 that separates your predicted value at 2.5 AU from the observed value at 3 AU? As I said, I’m referring to your analysis of Atlas. You used 1/r^2 scaling. And since outgassing has been observed for Atlas, this objection seems moot. I have not said anything about ʻOumuamua’s anomaly. I don’t know why you keep bringing this up. I’m criticizing your model. You made no mention that it would not continue to scale. You need to share such details.

There was no pertinent comment at all, but one might wonder why you’d post it. The existence of the paper suggests that there is some idea I’m not the right kind of doctor to help you, but you clearly need help.