swansont

I think Linkey is allergic to actually citing facts and providing sources. Also from https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/alcohol-consumption-per-capita/country-comparison/ And given the slice of the US that is puritanical, the ones that drink, drink a bit more. I’ve lived in places that didn’t sell alcohol (even beer) on Sundays, and there are a fair number of “dry” counties and municipalities (which means there are likely still moonshiners out there and certainly home brewers) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dry_communities_by_U.S._state

We’ve been doing this with chemistry for a while - knowing what makes similar bonds and constructing new molecules, so it’s not surprising to do it with something more complex. I imagine the advances in chemistry would have happened much faster if computers had been available, Were they predicting the effects, or is that something they had to do by trial and error? Saying the need data for antivirals and vaccines suggests there’s still trial and error.

Which only matters if you know where it started, and you also have to know what other accelerations it is undergoing, to that precision. IOW, you can’t “lose” anything inside the error bars At 50 km/s, it will travel ~1.5 billion km in that time, modified by whatever net acceleration it undergoes. 10,000 km is literally lost in the noise.

It’s by inspection. If the reported speed is 52 km/s, then it’s fair to conclude that they don’t know it to much better precision. You need a lot more digits (even with a longer observation time) to see a perturbation on the order of less than 1 m/s I doubt you could discern it from deviations of the trajectory, either. At our distance, the acceleration from the sun is 0.006 m/s^2, so the anomaly is still very small. We simply don’t have or get the precision we need

Right. I think the OP is asking about whether the acceleration can be detected. Which is a “no” given the precision of measurement.

I didn’t say anything about chatbots, and you didn’t provide the clarification I asked for.

What do you mean by replace? The evolution of AI or the “next big thing” that tech will try to sell us as being must-have but never lives up to its billing, like blockchain, NFTs and the internet-of-things?

v=at An acceleration of 2 x 10^-8 m/s^2 for a duration of just over 3 years (10^8 s) would result in a speed change of about 2 m/s. The current speed is 58 km/s, so detecting such an anomaly would depend on the precision of measurement and length of time of observation for the curious, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3I/ATLAS The comet or the acceleration anomaly? I’m assuming the OP was asking about the latter. If that’s what you meant, do you have a reference?

Which is why I am fond of asking people to define what they mean by “real” when it comes up. They have physical effects, but you still can’t hand me a shadow, or a hole. That points to the definition of real, in this case, being “not an illusion” rather than “physically exists”

No. The laws of thermodynamics prevent it. Even if you gave all the necessary information instead of some vague statement, the answer will still be no, but then one could give more details about why.

What grows, if it has no mass or energy You can’t conclude “soul” until you eliminate all other possible causes for emotion, or etc.

I would add that if you ones a little down in the queue, after we’ve spam-banned, report. We still see the hidden posts for a while, so “recent posts” still shows us all the spam, and we might miss something buried on page 4 or 5 I don’t think it’s that. I still think it’s getting as many pages to show fraudulent phone numbers for the scammers so that searches (especially the AI summary) point to them, so they can fool you into calling them and giving up credit card and/or account info. Because they tried different formatting tactics, I think it means they know not all the posts will appear, owing to spam filters. I also think they’re counting on many target sites being unmoderated

I don’t have any insight into that. I know the CAPTCHA was upgraded, but there are sites out there selling ways to defeat the safeguards. My estimation is that the filter caught 3/4 of the spammers but only half of the spam posts. Spammers that filled up their 5 post limit used different formats and the filter would only flag some of them. I’m guessing they are doing that to increase the odds that something gets through. If the algorithm is learning what counts as spam then it should become more efficient

No. Not even from the same location, or some are using a VPN to appear to be from somewhere else, though many were from India (though I only checked a small fraction of the posts)

>500 flagged posts when I logged in 45 minures ago. Slowly spam-banning them, and those that didn’t get caught. Plus they keep showing up every couple of minutes

FYI, since we had an influx today, that the spam filters caught some, but not all, of the posts.

It’s your job to show that it’s not.

There’s no debate. The “wisest of Indians” don’t dictate what is considered science, nor what our rules of discussion are, and you are the one posting here; you don’t get to pass the buck.

Calling something science doesn’t make it science. In any event, we’re using the definition that requires rigor and falsifiability. That is, it involves the objective. Subjective realizations need not apply.

How do uncharged photons give rise to the charge in an electron? How are they confined? What is the size of the electron and how does this compare to experiment?

There’s a sandbox area for testing such things Cubic structure made of…what? How does the proton mass depend on this? What do photons have to do with protons. What is the confining structure that gives you a standing wave? You’re free to explain how it’s not numerology. And it is a personal theory, even if it’s not yours, but you have to be prepared to defend it.

When do you plan to do so?

I’d ask you to back this up with a link, but you can’t. The law/regulation was repealed in 2009 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_09_1059

Which assumes we surf youtube.

It looks like it’s a study about bias that uses cherry-picked examples. Ironic. One example is that they didn’t ascribe the tides to gravity…before Newton came up with the concept. Another was biologists ascribing a behavior to biology, rather than physics, around the time that atomic theory was proposed by Dalton, and before it had really become ingrained. If those were the best examples they could come up with, I can’t think there’s much to this. You can’t ascribe phenomena to influences you aren’t aware of. Proposing something completely new isn’t the default, especially when the data are scarce and no firm conclusion could be drawn — we tend to decry e.g. ascribing UAPs to being aliens for this very reason. You generally need lots of data to see patterns. Scant data doesn’t allow one to rule out statistical anomalies. You’d end up chasing statistical flukes, which could be an even bigger waste of time.