swansont

If it’s new, why would there be a previous mention of it? A new phenomenon or technique has to be evaluated ; you can’t just let an algorithm allow all new stuff through - that’s quite contrary to the purpose of peer review. We have too many scam journals already; this would just add to the problem

I subscribe to the theory of inalienable rights, and as such, no justification is necessary. The question is: what is the authority the government has to justify removing those right? As I stated earlier, I’d be swayed by evidence that you no longer have the capacity to make an informed decision, but I don’t expect such evidence exists. Does age necessarily degrade one’s sense of responsibility for the younger generations, which presumably enters into the equation for parents?

“This month could be the best time to spot the northern lights for nearly a decade, as the combination of the "equinox effect" and supercharged solar activity will make auroras more likely. However, precisely where and when they will appear is still up in the air.” https://www.livescience.com/space/the-sun/march-could-be-the-best-month-for-the-northern-lights-for-nearly-a-decade-if-the-sun-stays-active I had not previously heard of the equinox effect (aka Russell–McPherron effect, as I learned) but it makes sense that there would be times where the alignment of the earth’s field made it easier for the solar wind to enter the atmosphere https://www.northernshotstours.com/equinox-effect/

I fail to see why this matters, other than having a misunderstanding of the structure means any criticism of it is likely flawed, as you would be attacking a strawman AI, specifically LLMs, are trained on existing information, so how are they going to evaluate an investigation into a new phenomenon or a new technique? How will you be sure the LLM didn’t just make up the evaluation of a paper, as they are prone to do?

Which are examples of abandoning the social contract.

That’s not what I asked. I want to know what your understanding is, and Google won’t give me that. The reason I ask is that your phrasing suggests that it’s not what the generally accepted definition is. Case in point. A law is not superior to a theory, it is a subset of it. (and not theorem; that’s math). So I ask again: What is your understanding of what “scientific laws” are?

To the extent that they are not facing disenfranchisement barriers, the fact that the younger crowd does not turn out in greater numbers suggests that they are not willing to bear full responsibility for those consequences. (I know they do face barriers in the US, and would be happy to vote to launch the disenfranchisers into the sun) Who did? This is the only time “trust” appeared in the thread.

It’s always possible, in principle, to do so, but I must ask: What is your understanding of what “scientific laws” are?

Right. We hear about outliers because they are outliers, but they are not typical even if it’s hinted that they are; the hasty generalization fallacy in action (specifically, as I just reminded myself via search, it’s pars pro toto - a part taken to represent the whole) I think it comes about in part because we see examples of math savants who look like they are on the spectrum and improperly extrapolate from there, so it’s a sampling bias error.

Depends on what you mean by busting the myth: showing it to be untrue, or widespread acknowledgement that it’s not true. I think the myth was busted a while ago, in the first meaning of busted, but like many myths, it persists owing to ignorance, and that that’s probably not going to change very soon.

“Older, wiser heads” seem to be quite susceptible to manipulation - by scammers, and lies from propaganda machines. And as we get older we seem to be more set in our ways and more prone to be in denial about our condition. We decide that the young aren’t capable of informed decisions, which is backed up by science, so I think there’s an argument for doing it for the aged if there’s similar science to support it.

Not quite - canopy coverage generally has gaps, which is what lidar leverages. Unlike a photo, you don’t need to sample all of the surface to get a map. If you got one data point per square meter you could still make a contour map of reasonable precision. Not unless it’s really close to the bottom to begin with, owing to the strong attenuation, and if you’re doing that you don’t need lidar. You’re basically doing an old-fashioned sounding

OK, but the MKS system didn’t “introduce” a fiction; it’s true in the MKS/SI system. You are using a different unit system; what you mean by charge in that system is not what is meant in the MKS system. IOW, you’ve incorporated the constant k into the charge, and redefined it. IOW, conversion requires other units, unlike converting e.g. ergs to joules to BTU, or newtons to dynes to pounds

Do elaborate, please.

The photons do have a direction; you point your laser at the double slit and the photons go in that direction. What you lack is precision in knowing exactly where they go. i.e. you can’t aim them at one slit or the other, because they aren’t localized to that level. But they hit the screen on the wall and not e.g. the ceiling The energy is associated with how well you can localize the photon. You can shine visible light down a metal tube while microwaves won’t propagate Generating a few photons and waiting for one to go in a particular direction is possible but generating multiple photons and then attenuating the signal is easier.

It could, but IR has more efficient detectors and it more readily penetrates hazy and foggy atmosphere. Plus you don’t have bright lights flashing, which might bother (or alert) people It’s not photography, though. You are measuring time-of-flight signal of a light pulse to measure a distance. To amend my previous post, in checking something I saw a reference to bathymetric lidar, which uses green light to scan shallow water, like riverbeds and coastline.

How reliable is it, though, especially if it is itself an AI algorithm that can hallucinate answers? I’ve seen complaints about such tools from real people being told their work is likely AI. Possibly, but then, one wonders why programmers wouldn’t put such self-correction into their AI algorithm?

No LIDAR uses IR light at around 1 micron, and the attenuation of such light is very strong. Much of the light would be absorbed or scattered before it traveled a meter https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Penetration-depth-attenuation-length-of-electromagnetic-radiation-in-water-vs_fig1_258254992 Much of the EM radiation spectrum in general wouldn’t be very useful. (This is why they have to use ELF to send messages to subs to tell them get near enough to the surface to allow for easier communication)

That doesn’t speak to a success rate worthy of widespread adoption. Expecting better doesn’t make one a Luddite. >30 years ago Intel was forced to recall a processor because it returned errors that only mattered in high-precision calculations, that happened only rarely (“Byte magazine estimated that 1 in 9 billion floating point divides with random parameters would produce inaccurate results” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug) because we expected computers to give the right answer, but now we get the insistence that we must lower expectations because of bad marketing that over-promises and under-delivers.

Many orders of magnitude shorter than the 10^-56m (for 1 m/s) wavelength earth would have. (Our galaxy has a mass of about 10^18 times that of earth) and what wave effects would you look for? What is it going to interfere with, or what would it do to diffract?

Planck’s constant is 6.63 x 10^-34 J-s A 1 kg mass moving at 1 m/s will have a wavelength of 6.63 x 10^-34 m (around 18 orders of magnitude smaller than a proton) The earth has a mass of 6 x 10^24 kg. Moving at 1 m/s, its wavelength would be 10^-56 m To the extent that you could consider the universe to have translational motion and this a momentum (which really doesn’t make sense), it would be quite small

The newer, better vaccine does an even better job https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/02/could-a-vaccine-prevent-dementia-shingles-shot-data-only-getting-stronger/ “A study published in Nature Communications this month by researchers in California went further. They compared dementia rates among nearly 66,000 people who received the Shingrix vaccine and over 260,000 unvaccinated matched controls. The researchers found that the vaccinated group had a 51 percent lower risk of dementia compared to the unvaccinated controls.”

I can see the argument for not using ≥ for numbers only; you need at least one to be a variable since the “or” gives an implication of having the possibility of multiple values

Everything has a wave nature, but we rarely notice it for anything that has mass above the atomic level. DeBroglie wavelength is given by h/p. h is small, and for massive objects p is proportional to mass. Even for an atom, you have to look carefully to see effects of wave behavior

You’re discussing fiction. You can do whatever you want. If you have a physics question, strip out the nonsense and ask it in the appropriate subforum.