swansont

Replying to a post telling you not to just provide links with a post that just has links and not much else is a bold strategy. Unfortunately, Cotton, it did not pay off.

Telling us what it isn’t is not particularly helpful. You’re proposing something new, and a new state of…something (not matter) so you need more than this. Yes, but if you smack a trampoline you generally don’t go through it. So that analogy fails. You haven’t provided much in the way of a mathematical model, and that is absolutely require. Just saying it’s been derived from known data isn’t very illuminating. And hand-waving gets old pretty fast.

A valid point, I think. It’s a little like how more people used to be able to maintain or fix their own cars, out of necessity. You had to know things about the internet because nothing was (reliably) plug-and-play. Now very few know what’s going on under the hood. (edit: posted w/o seeing exchemist’s comment)

Threads merged

What for? It was the question that was asked. I don’t think you understand what compare means. You can compare the results of analysis of the data. We do it all the time. As you pointed out earlier, progress (development) does not apply to biological evolution. Why would you imply the opposite a short while later? If you want to talk about medicine evolving you need to make it clear you aren’t talking about biological evolution, since the definitions are different. But it has, and that was an answer to an inquiry, not the topic of discussion. And who “joins” evolution with religion? (that’s rhetorical; please don’t sidetrack things further by answering)

Moderator NoteYou have a thread about this already https://scienceforums.net/topic/135819-the-dean-paradox-a-paradox-exposing-a-fundamental-disconnect-between-the-logic-that-underpin-physical-theories-of-reality/ And you abandoned it rather than engage in discussion. It’s still open, for the moment, but you need to follow the direction of the mod note there.

You can compare e.g. mortality rates, and medical treatments. Which we did. See? That was pretty straightforward. We can’t compare them to see the differences because they’re different? Your “logic” escapes me.

You’re getting ahead of yourself here by building on a foundation that has yet to be established as valid. How does one test that “luxia” exists, much less that it has these properties, without using an untested model? i.e. using mainstream science. Are we moving through luxia, or at rest with respect to it? Adhering to precise definitions is important in order to communicate How does the luxia “know” that the motion is a wave vs bulk material? What interaction is involved?

waitaminute has been suspended for violations of our rule against bad faith discussion, and posting speculations in mainstream forum. Normally the latter is addressed by simply moving the thread, but posting as if you are just seeking comment and avoiding the expectation that you have to defend the thesis is an unacceptable tactic

Indeed. Thank you for volunteering this — you agree that we afford you that ability to be anonymous, but instead of doing that you chose to misrepresent yourself. You were given the opportunity, and you did not take it. That was a choice you made.

Yes, evolution was mentioned, and it was not a good argument, which was pointed out. The focus on medical advances, nutrition, war and slavery really have little to do with evolution. The fact that it was mention in a few posts doesn’t make it relevant and certainly was not the focus of discussion. This seems like a complete non-sequitur. You most certainly can compare ages.

It becomes hard to just assume incompetence when both traits are so strong, and the goodwill of offering benefit of doubt has long eroded away. “It wasn’t malice…this time” is hardly an endorsement .

Coding error is blamed. Wikipedia has an entry on it, and points to a post on Xitter, which I won’t link to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution

It’s not like war has been eliminated from the equation, nor slavery (if we’re comparing recent times to the middle ages, the 1800s are recent times)

No

Anyone can raise an issue of modifying the rules — we have a section for suggestions. What’s not proper is breaking the rules and then pleading that you shouldn’t be bound by them for the reason that your ramblings are some new revelatory truth. We get this a lot. To quote the judge from “My Cousin Vinny” I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it. Go develop your idea and you can present it when it’s compliant with the rules.

Once again, that’s between you and the United States, i.e. the government. https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png (BTW, grabbing an argument from a chatbot AI isn’t going to help your case)

This is bullshit. The first amendment protects you from censorship or sanctions by the government. We aren’t a government entity. And the issue isn’t anonymity. If you wanted to be anonymous all you had to do was post the salient material (as required by the rules anyway) and not link to the paper that had your name on it. This is, as far as I’m concerned, a serious issue. Rule 2.12 on posting in good faith includes misrepresentation, and you posted as if you were inquiring about someone else’s paper in a mainstream forum rather than posting in speculations as you should have. For that reason you avoided having to defend the argument because it was thought not to be yours.

There’s no one path or formula for discovery. But in the context if this thread, one response is: not here. The kind of wild, unsupported conjecture you started putting forth a few weeks back is not within the scope of our rules. You are not the first, nor likely the last, to get vocal about not liking that the rules apply to you. We aren’t compelled to accommodate you. There are sites that don’t tolerate any against-the-mainstream discussion at all. Here were permit it as long as it’s at a point where one can (at least in principle) compare it to experiment and/or existing models. As the mods often tell people who start soapboxing: this isn’t your blog. We’re not set up for more chaotic discussion, or a firehose of crackpot ramblings, and we want to be able to exert leverage on people to get them to respond to inquiry with a handful of volunteer moderators. So we have a line, and your posts were on the wrong side of it.

Prajna has been suspended for violating the rule about requiring people to click links in order to participate after they had acknowledged that it’s a rules violation

Ok. Your choice. Din’t bring the topic up again.

The latter would not have offered such a poor definition. My PhD in physics is an even better friend in this case. 11 years of school studying physics and ~32 years of employment in the field and it never came up as a topic. Citation needed “first ones offered”? What does string theory have to do with anything? What would it have looked like to people if it had been that way? That’s something to blame on organized religion and possibly politics, not science You don’t list any of these problems, and relativity is tested in new ways fairly often.

And I was clarifying the kind of faith you exhibited. Being an atheist is completely beside the point. People were “sure” about a lot of technologies. The list of “next big thing/can’t miss” things is pretty long. Feel free to respond using your Google Glass while riding your Segway and thinking about the Metaverse. No technology is guaranteed to succeed, and AI was made public far too early IMO. The public is beta-testing it, which isn’t how beta-testing used to work.

For someone who purports to have developed a ToE, you sure have lousy reading comprehension. I even bolded the relevant parts of the rule you were violating, and “advertising” wasn’t it. Post the material here, or don’t post about it. Those are your only two options.

Moderator NoteYou tried this earlier and it was moved to the trash. Rule 2.7: Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum. Owing to security concerns, documents must be in a format not as vulnerable to security issues (PDF yes, microsoft word or rich text format, no). I bolded the sections that apply here I think that’s a non-starter