swansont

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

I don’t see anyone arguing against the laws of nature. It’s just that you haven’t articulated the details of the application of these laws Not here you haven’t (what you’ve stated elsewhere doesn’t apply). You mentioned “proportional reasoning” once, but, again, you haven’t articulated any details.

If you have a mountain of evidence, that sounds like a science discussion. If what you have is subjective observation, interpretation, opinion or anecdotes, then you don’t have evidence.

Apparently. I don’t often participate, but I see the titles and post summaries, and when I see “experiment” associated with LLM, I’m going to scan it to see why it’s in philosophy (some people try to sneak posts in that should be eksewhere), or if rule 2.13 applies. In this case, both triggers came into play. You’re offering a philosophical solution to something that’s not a philosophical question; you pretty much ignore any issues about how a LLM works. You might as well have asked about objects of different masses falling at the same speed. A philosophical treatment is a non-starter.

Not recalling exactly what I googled, but it had to do with leaving shoes behind, and it led me here

Where is the philosophy in this? It seems like a not-very-rigorous investigation of a LLM that ignores the obvious (that a LLM is programmed to give plausible-sounding answers) Per the rules, this belongs in speculations

I’ve seen this suggestion. It was called “rapture trolling”

Turns out there were two spammers who posted in philosophy that we hadn’t banned yet (gujarrr was one) And I just found a few more by searching on “support” in the title and scrolling through the ~55 pages of spam we got on Friday. (Most were in Science News)

Tough to tell, if they use a VPN or other proxy.

I assumed so, but it was the only spam post that showed up, so if Otto could see it… Wow. That seems like the worst way to implement the protocol. Unfortunately we can only do what the software allows. Occasionally I wish I had a non-moderator account so I could see what regular members see.

I was going to leave a pair of shoes at the end of my driveway to make it look like I was taken to the passers-by, but it was raining and I didn’t want them to get wet. Trump wanted to get raptured but the holy escalator at The UN knew better and stopped working.

One post is not a flood. It wasn’t the same type. And the system flagged it, though I had assumed flagged posts were hidden until approved (they are displayed with a pinkish background, just like hidden posts are)

You didn’t provide the calculation and hadn’t provided any reasoning behind it, and now you’re saying it’s proportional but not why or how you arrive at 10%. Nor have you explained why you think it would be behaving like Oumuamua and not Borisov. In addition, we don’t know anything about Oumuamua on its inbound journey as it was discovered some 40 days after perihelion.

Zero. Work is force (dot) displacement. No displacement, no work. No work, no power.

I don’t see a calculation, and as I’ve explained, such discussion doesn’t fit within our rules.

As a science discussion this is bad faith/trolling, so I’ve moved it to philosophy (as opposed to the trash can) where I can ignore it so long as nobody reports any rules violations.

That would all be based on the notion that Prajna is hallucinating all of this, in which case they are also hallucinating the rejection of the notion. Science is based (in part) on rejecting solipsism, and also if people want to discuss solipsism the philosophy section is easily found.

I gave an example to clarify what I meant and help you parse it, but you apparently ignored it.

I’m getting an uneasy feeling here. Your original question was about detecting a specified acceleration. That was addressed. But now there’s discussion that’s not centered on measurement precision, and a somewhat cryptic prediction that does not reference how it was produced. It hints at an agenda. Further, your username suggests you’ve posted here before under a similarly-named account.

What does that have to do with anything? Things don’t have to be self-aware to exist.

I thought his theory was from the 1970s. Not mass, since mass isn’t conserved (so it’s harder to say it’s missing in a nuclear reaction) but other properties, like energy and angular momentum, and the fact that the electron energy has a continuous spectrum, which is related to conservation of momentum. “made of energy”? If the model is flawed, any calculation that stems from it is suspect. Is “container for the energy” your phrasing or his? You’re using descriptions that I would not expect from someone who had studied physics at any advanced level Yes, and it’s this explanation that we’re asking for. The actual physics at play. No it won’t. Our rules preclude building on non-mainstream physics, without providing the solid foundation first. You’ve got to establish the validity of the model first.

Things don’t have to involve a conscious observer to know they are there. i.e. e.g. the moon doesn’t disappear when out of my sight, or I’m asleep. I can see tides, or take a picture.

Yes.

Optical illusions affect people, too. The impact is real, even if not based on something physical, but it’s our mind doing the heavy lifting. We can also look at a definition of real in terms of not being just a concept. So maybe something to consider in being “real” is whether it exists independently of the mind.

But this was first observed in July, and it will be leaving the solar system in less than a year. And was 250x larger than the number you cited