swansont

3I/ATLAS 2.5 AU: ~0.67×10−6 m/s² That’s your number. At 5 AU, using a 1/r^2 effect, it is only a factor of 4 smaller. 1.7 x 10^-7 is >100x bigger than the observed value of 1 x 10-9m/s² (from your post)

Try it and see That paper takes a position we’ve been asking you to take. “This report argues for, and exemplifies, a rigorous and empirically grounded approach to AI consciousness” The also say “Our analysis suggests that no current AI systems are conscious” Are you proposing using their standards?

Category error it is, then. The problem being that this is a science discussion site.

If the categories are logic vs science, then it seems quite likely. I wanted to check, hence my request, which you continue to ignore.

Summer ended just a few weeks ago, as did the measurement window. Seems pretty fresh. “We use astrometric data on 3I/ATLAS compiled by the Minor Planet Center from May 15 to September 23, 2025” Doesn’t seem all that outdated, nor does that affect how much bigger your prediction is than the measured value.

Sure, but there’s no ad hominem here. I’m not arguing you’re wrong because of some personal attribute. I was commenting on your (possibly feigned) confusion about what I was asking you for. Either you were confused about a simple request, or you were pretending to be. It seems it’s the latter. But I want to know what you think the rules of logic and rhetoric are and how they apply, so that I can point out how the rules of science encompass more than logic and rhetoric. The rules of science are what apply here, in speculations on SFN, regardless of how inconvenient that might be for you.

That’s the citation I gave earlier. The measured anomaly is, as you say, around 10^-9. Your prediction is much larger than that. You seem to be asserting that outgassing or radiation effects don’t account for this measured value, and I’m asking for details. Yes, that one, but it’s a measurement and not speculation about any ET-related subject matter

Are you really this obtuse, or do you just play a simpleton on TV? Queensberry Rules of logic and rhetoric. Please provide a link to these.

Not aware of these. Perhaps you could favor us with a link? I know there are Queensberry Rules governing boxing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess_of_Queensberry_Rules and am familiar with the protocols surrounding science. But I’m not the one who has to make the adjustment here.

We’ve been demanding rigor and objectivity, which are required if one is to accept and validate an idea in science. You don’t get an exception to the requirements.

This is indistinguishable from a response about belief in a supreme being.

How would you objectively test for “stochastic inevitability”?

Your “answer as above” lacks a citation.

Which you have not stated until now, and you have not provided any links to credible sources reporting it And as I said, Atlas has a tail, so we know matter is being ejected — a non-gravitational acceleration is expected. If you want discussion, you have to provide the details, rather than expecting others to go dig for them. When you make a claim, you need to back it up. Here’s a report of an acceleration no bigger than 3 x 10^-10 au/d^2 (if my math is correct, that’s about 10^-8 m/s^2) https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/CLV.pdf So is there any evidence that the usual suspects (outgassing, radiation pressure, Yarkovsky effect) don’t account for it?

But dS = dQ/T, so if heat flow in is greater than the flow out, dQ is positive, and so is dS. Entropy increases.

Please some worked examples of it. And a properly formatted equation.

It means they (typically) will get moved there, if they aren’t started there. ETA: It’s not what I mean. It was a staff consensus to add this rule.

Your responses almost count as cryptic messages. It’s like overhearing one half of a phone conversation Desperate? albedo would be important for any model that wants to estimate heating or radiation pressure. Ruled out? Who did that? Nothing was visible, but not all gases are visible. But this thread is about Atlas, which is definitely outgassing - there’s a tail. www.noirlab.eduGemini South Captures Growing Tail of Interstellar Comet...Astronomers and students working together through a unique educational initiative have obtained a striking new image of the growing tail of interstellar Comet 3I/ATLAS. The observations reveal a pr.... Of which, I will point out AGAIN, you have not shared the details. I can’t help but notice that these are not calculations. They shouldn’t be that involved. (I’ve noted a strong correlation between people who resist sharing such work with people who “don’t do math”). People who are to be taken seriously are eager to share and discuss, rather than just lecture. The latter, BTW, is contrary to the rules. If that’s what you want, go start a blog. This is a discussion forum.

If you ask for clarification, I will try to clarify. But I’ve tried to be clear: most threads about AI go into speculation, per rule 2.13. You were invited to present your evidence. I don’t see where you did. And skeptical - yes, that comes with the territory. This being a science discussion site. Surely it has become apparent in your time here that this is not a credulous audience

I find it hard to fathom the reasoning here. It gets difficult to maintain the assumption of good faith posting with every obtuse comment.

No, I didn’t. When someone tells you about their own work, it’s not appealing to authority.

Who is “they”? IBM? The computer conglomerate? That has their own AI model (Granite)?

I base my notion on what the computer people say, e.g. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/large-language-models “LLMs work as giant statistical prediction machines that repeatedly predict the next word in a sequence. They learn patterns in their text and generate language that follows those patterns.” I suspect they employ a lot of coders. It would not surprise me that they hire ethicists to help stave off legal problems, but that’s not the same as their input becoming part of the code. You’re free to present actual evidence, of course.

It’s not clear what you’re not in agreement with I think there could be other factors. Albedo would be one. No sense? Solids outgas. The question isn’t whether it’s happening, the question is how much? Outgassing would follow the laws of nature. The issue I brought up is that you haven’t shared the details of the laws of nature you’re applying Without details, there’s no way for any of us to know how you arrived at this conclusion. The point of a discussion board is to share these details.

Yes, go talk to them. (though I am a doctor)