swansont

That’s not what Dawkins meant by the selfish gene

Possibly, but we’ve not detected any thus far.

This assumes it’s a genetic and heritable trait. And even if it is, it could involve a recessive gene that confers some advantage if you only have one copy.

When I click my avatar it takes me to my profile, where I can click to see my content (activity) If you click the post count below it, it takes you there directly

But having a gene to survive one malady might mean susceptibility to something else, and a gene that makes you susceptible to one could be really good protection against another, as with (or similar to) malaria. One issue here is trying to make simplistic arguments (e.g. movie-plot threat arguments like War of the Worlds) about a complex system.

Science has been wrong, but it’s corrected by better science — better evidence showing the flaws of the original theory, and a better model arises. Religion and mysticism didn’t step in with the better theory. As for acceptance, yes. Scientists are human, not robots. We do have personal biases and other weaknesses. New ideas take time to sink in. But even that doesn’t fully address the issue. Scientists are skeptics, and so it’s not just evidence, but the amount of evidence, because statistical flukes happen, and you want to be convinced that it’s not a fluke, or that there’s not some other explanation for the data.

Yes, we agree on the math, but the way you phrased it sounded like we’re not doing anything (or much) to treat adult diseases. We are doing a lot. Vaccines train your body to respond, granting increased immunity, but without running the risks of actually getting the disease. It strengthens your immune system.

This is a woefully under-specified question. You would need to understand the cognitive/neurological details of intuition before trying to tie it back to QM. Ultimately you would find QM at the basic level, but there’s so many layers above that to be considered.

What previous ones changed the life of everyone? I think the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine being available in a one-year time frame was life-changing. What constitutes a breakthrough? Would Nobel prizes count? We could discuss the impact of various Nobels. Are you talking about science or technology? “More pixels” is more the latter. Technology is usually the combination of a lot of scientific elements so it’s not likely you’ll see all of them being discovered at once. There can be one enabling discovery that allows for a significant advance — all of the other parts were there — but most of the time progress is incremental, like with more pixels. Depends. I did government R&D, and the project was assigned (it existed and the team members were hired to work on it) and we cared about progress/results because that’s how continued funding was justified. In commercial research there is a focus on money because that’s how you stay in business, but of course they care about progress because you have to make a product to sell. Academic research has no profit. Quality research increases the chances for grants.

It had a big impact, but it’s not like there was no impact on adult life expectancy. Here’s an example: life expectancy of a 20 y.o. in England and Wales was ~60 in 1850. It’s now >20 years longer https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages But you have yet to explain why you think there’s a cost. You didn’t frame this as investigating what downside there might be, and whenever you’ve been asked for clarification you’ve dodged the question.

If you believe but think there’s a better way, do you really believe? If yes, then this is the free will thing; you decided to not follow the rules

I recall someone arguing that freewill is how <deity in question> can justify sending you to hell or other bad things to you. It was your choice. You can’t force someone to believe, because then it’s not belief (so I agree with Hitchens on that) but it’s not blackmail IMO because if you don’t believe you don’t think you’re going to hell If I can play God’s advocate for a moment: I think the counterargument is that this does not follow, since maybe it could have been even worse. It falls under the “God works in mysterious ways/part of God’s plan“ umbrella which can’t be falsified

m_m has been banned at their request for sockpuppetry; previous incarnations probably mar_mar and mar_mar2

Like the other six data points that show similar excesses. The ones at 111 GeV show an even stronger deviation. Your speculation is built upon this more fundamental speculation, and we don’t allow that — you need to provide evidence of this model first. Good luck, since we already have the failure of the electron to adhere to it.

IANAL but how do you claim ownership over something you willingly released into the public/common space of the ocean and river? With cattle AFAIK you get a permit for grazing on government land and there’s some amount of tending of the herd. I think you’d need international law to cover it for fishing. (good luck with that)

How does it make you susceptible? You’re not as susceptible to the pathogen when you’re vaccinated. People decided to stop getting the measles vaccine, and now lots of kids are getting the measles. 3 confirmed deaths in the US, with 1356 cases (92% unvaccinated or unknown status) as of Aug 6. >20% of kids under 5 had to be hospitalized. https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html “herd susceptibility” is just being unvaccinated. How would you become more susceptible than that?

We have a tendency to want things to fit into convenient categories, so such duality will arise when that doesn’t happen. Such categorization might work most of the time but nature is messy and doesn’t always conform to these simple characterizations. So the exceptions are interesting, but we shouldn’t make a fuss over the existence of them

No, I think you are greatly misunderstanding the situation. Clarification is clearing up ambiguities and responding to questions if people have them. But your “clarification” here doesn’t pass the smell test. I answered using an analysis using a photon, and you didn’t “clarify” that this was a massive particle until much later. I questioned your units and you didn’t “clarify” that it was action until much later. Both of those should have been immediate. And the single particle example did not have these units. All the other added information didn’t have any obvious connection to the OP - you never clarified how it was relevant. So this looks a lot less like clarification and more like you changing the conditions of the problem. One reason that’s not well-received is that it means people wasted their time trying to help you. Not a good thing when you want feedback from them. There have been multiple requests to close this and I agree.

Debater has been banned as a sockpuppet of Night FM

You had no math, so they use less than that? The 27,000 number was for “If Earth orbited around Jupiter at the moon's present distance from Earth” What does “an Earth-class moon around a Jupiter” (and this factor of 50) have to do with this? It’s earth around Jupiter. No modifications. A century is still 100 years, right? A millennium is 10x longer? How do you get from 46 to 46k?

But it does not have that action except under one very specific condition (your duration is exactly 1 sec) and action is not an intrinsic property much less a unique one. So you can’t say it consistently has this value. Also not being detectable by M-M is not unique if we are considering hypothetical particles. Also, it occurs to me that this new insistence that the energy is the intrinsic energy (mass) changes things quite drastically. As I had laid out, I assumed a photon since you had not offered the scenario of a hypothetical particle. But a massive particle has kinetic energy and momentum, and if it has a sufficient amount, the wavelength will be significantly shorter, this allowing interference fringes to potentially be seen. (and it’s interesting that I said photon but you didn’t correct me, despite your later claim that you were talking about an intrinsic energy)

But you were implying your arguments were clear, and they weren’t And I will ask, ONCE AGAIN why the action is relevant for a M-M experiment Since the posts are disjointed and not complete or consistent, there’s no reason to think one part applies to any other. Freely falling implies a gravitational field, so you are not away from external influences. Since I never said anything about the energy increasing linearly or to infinity, I don’t see how that relates to me. And I wasn’t talking about a photon until later (and still did not say linearly to infinity) You had asked about a particle with an intrinsic nonzero energy, which is not a photon, and I gave you the formula. If you want an equation you are free to do the math yourself. It’s some simple kinematics and a basic integral. But you haven’t made this connection. When people who understand physics say you’re wrong, you at least have to provisionally accept this, and try and understand the explanation.

And yet you do it anyway

I interpreted @ to mean “at” as in, “at a rate of” and you said “a stream of such particles” which does imply just that. You may not have meant to imply a flux, but you did imply it with the phrasing. By trying to spin it this way and not admit an error, you further damage your credibility and now have to come up with an explanation for how it makes any sense for you to bring up action, and how a stream of particles can be described this way. All of a photon’s energy is kinetic, but we have other equations to describe it as opposed to massive particles. And yes, a photon will increase its energy if falling into a gravity well, but I wasn’t discussing photons, as the equations clearly indicate. You didn’t bring up intrinsic energy until about one day ago, 37 posts into the discussion. Not sure why proper time has any impact on the topic, and similarly, it only came up in the last 24 hours. And that’s one of the problems - your discussion jumps all over the place. The topic is the Michelson-Morley experiment and whether a certain energy particle could be detected. All the rest is you trying to revise history to cover for either a unit error or a really badly-worded description, and trying to bring other irrelevant topics up.

Of course we know what they are. How could you make this claim without knowing what they are? What we don’t know is elements of how they work. As for what they are for, they don’t have to be for anything. That’s not for science to say. Assigning a purpose in a religious, mystical or philosophical appendage. That’s not for you to say