swansont

Nobody posted an update or link

When I was working, it was reading journal articles and (mostly) going to conferences. I also served on a review team for a couple of DARPA programs. When I was in school it was more about getting up to speed than staying current, but papers and conferences, too.

Of your personal data. As far as I can tell, there is nothing I can delete. We don’t collect much in the way of personal data.

Archived posts don’t show up in the search.

Moderator NoteMaterial for discussion must be posted here. Not via links or uploads.

Moderator NoteRules require material for discussion be posted here, not via links or uploads. And: yeah, right. (In any event, there isn’t a Nobel for math)

My boss and I were discussing this, back in the day, and he suggested it’s easier to imagine it if you imagine it’s 100 doors. You pick one, and then 98 doors are opened up. Was your 1% chance correct, or is it that one door that’s still closed.

The clocks would show the same time if they’re in the same frame of reference. What synchronization? What phase?

They do seem different, which is why it was such a revolutionary concept. But we now have the capability to measure it. It’s why e.g. the mass of protons + neutrons + electrons is greater than the mass of an atom made from them

Nothing to do with fuzzy logic, it’s about properly applying logic. There’s added information (the revealed door is not chosen randomly) If you want to discuss something, post it. “Teasing” rapidly becomes tiresome.

Yes, increasing linearly is what the equation shows. As I said. I asked you to explain, not just repeat the claim.

Since phase is frequency x time, I’m not sure how this is a revelation of any sort How does it “reveal” this?

What E=mc2 tells us is that mass is a form of energy. The m is mass. It can be converted to other forms of energy, under some circumstances

Which is why boycotts, or otherwise voting with your wallet (like we’re seeing with Disney) is a tool that can actually get results. Similarly, standing up to Trump (or bigotry in general) can be good business when it gets exposure. There was a suggestion on bluesky that you can find news stations owned by Sinclair (who are making demands of Kimmel to put him back on the air and run right-slanted news material) and see who advertises there, and you can pressure those companies to stop the advertising or you will boycott. No, but if it’s known that people who part their hair on the right are getting beat up, that affects everyone who parts their hair on the right — especially if they have been historically persecuted/threatened because of it. You lose the freedom of expression to part your hair the way you want to. You have the mental anguish of fear.

As I hinted above, I think it’s like terrorism laws. Your aim is not just to physically harm the target, but to threaten others on the same group. And legitimate threats (not just “tough talk”) are not protected speech.

One might conclude that they don’t care, and that all of their posturing was a performance to feed the outrage machine and keep the funding coming in. Especially considering the medical/health side of things. But too many people seem to believe the words and not the (in)actions. Doesn’t matter, though. While there are hate crime laws (as pointed out, and for reasons similar to why we have terrorism laws), there are no hate speech laws. Criticism wouldn’t qualify even if there were, except in Trump’s mind. And public figures are treated differently; for defamation the bar is higher.

You brought it up.

Not even political weakness? Showing that the US will not honor its obligations? What’s the chain of events that gets China involved?

Unless you’re communicating via pictograms or hieroglyphics, I don’t see this as a rules violation, and there’s some pot, kettle, black action going on here. Do we really need to spell out a rule about not being an ass when people introduce themselves?

I think that, in the context of what’s been discussed, you can say that imagination is a necessary but insufficient condition for doing science. You have to take the next steps - make testable predictions, have falsifiability, has to agree with evidence. To echo the message of the Feynman quote, one is constrained by how the universe actually behaves.

The scientifically accurate statement is that there’s no evidence that they exist. (evidence in the scientific sense) To paraphrase Laplace, we have no need for that hypothesis - deities add nothing, as anything ascribed to them would be ad hoc. Saying whether deities exist is purely a matter of belief.

Yes. I responded to the comment where you wrote “not joking”

Mass isn’t a conserved quantity, but conservation laws stem from symmetries (energy from time translation symmetry, i.e. the laws of physics don’t vary) What symmetry is responsible for ”time conservation”? What testable predictions come from your hypothesis? Time is a dimension, like length. Is there length conservation, too? How does that manifest itself?

Repeating this does not address the issues I pointed out. Which, if you did, would underscore the problems with your idea. As it is, you’re just soapboxing, and showing no interest in learning the details of the physics involved (I spent ~30 years working in this area of physics. I think it’s quite interesting) Don’t bring it up again

Flawed logic and reason can be countered with better logic and reason, and the “fanaticism” is based on the fact that science actually works. Or did the device and infrastructure you’re using to post your discussion appear from divine intervention? Science is about what can be demonstrated to be true, not what you believe to be true. The former leaves the door open open to better evidence and explanations. The latter, not so much.