swansont

Then it should be no problem to link to it. Where is this mirror and what is the significance of 9.5m? The angle depends on where the mirror is, and, again, the significance of 9.5m is not explained. “Down” is not defined, and there is radiation pressure and gravity from both the sun and Jupiter That’s not obvious; light rarely takes the same trajectory as massive objects unless you’ve got a carefully crafted scenario. Horizontal is not defined here 95 or the mysterious 9.5? What two Newtonian forces?

If you said child - everyone who wants to. Aren’t we referred to as her children? (John 3:2)

I’m not sure what the motivation is to respond to obvious spam, but when you quote them, and include the link, you’re helping them do their damage. When we ban them their original posts are hidden, but not anything in the responses. It’s extra work to hide those posts, too, and if we don’t notice then the spam link persists.

As npts2020 said, we have metal printers; we’ve had them for some time. But the one’s I’ve read about don’t use liquid metal. They use metal powder which is sintered using lasers, similar to laser welding. https://www.hubs.com/knowledge-base/introduction-metal-3d-printing/ A thin layer of metal powder is spread over the build platform and a high-power laser scans the cross-section of the component, melting (or fusing) the metal particles together and creating the next layer. The entire area of the model is scanned, so the part is built fully solid. When the scanning process is complete, the build platform moves downwards by one layer thickness and the recoater spreads another thin layer of metal powder. The process is repeated until the whole part is complete

You haven’t explained enough about how all this is allegedly connected (How are these things connected> what does Jupiter have to do with this?) It looks to me like you just threw a bunch of equations up there that are only loosely related but have no obvious significance to the very-poorly-defined example. It’s word salad with some math croutons

Fields are literally mathematical constructs in physics; they are not made of anything since they are not something that physically exists. They are mathematical conveniences for describing/predicting the behavior of things If one offers a position that they are made of something, it’s incumbent on them to present scientific evidence. Are there lots of children inquiring about quantum field theory or the finer points of general relativity? I can offer math-free explanations of E=mc^2 that don’t rely on either, but they would be somewhat limited, since there’s no math, but perhaps more importantly, because the underpinnings are missing. Feynman did an IMO excellent job of discussing the issues here in telling an interviewer why he couldn’t explain magnetic repulsion to him. There’s a lot to it, but it ends with “But I really can’t do a good job, any job, of explaining magnetic force in terms of something else you’re more familiar with, because I don’t understand it in terms of anything else that you’re more familiar with.” https://fs.blog/richard-feynman-on-why-questions/ Included in this is the problem with using analogy-type explanations So if you try and do a fields-are-sheets-of-particles you might just end up with questions like I asked in my first post, which you can’t answer, because fields aren’t made of particles.

But fields aren’t made of particles. Conveying incorrect information might be easier but it’s ultimately self-defeating. Physics is driven by math and you have to understand that language. There are things that get lost in translation if you try and simplify it. The common approach is to start with simple concepts like motion and force and build on them. I don’t think anyone’s scared out of physics by what’s going on in the math of grad-school topics like QFT. If you get scared off by math wouldn’t that happen in calculus? And if you can’t handle the math of QFT or GR or whatever, you can choose an area where you don’t have to deal with it.

Because you had an existing thread on referendum democracy, as I hope you can see. No need to cover the same ground all over again, but any new ground should actually be on-topic.

You’re missing the point; this is not in question. It’s other things that you said.

No. An eigenstate is a particular state of a system. A superposition is a linear combination of multiple eigenstates. e.g. a two state system has eigenstates |1> and |2> (they could represent energy states, or spin states, etc.) A superposition would be a|1> + b|2> where a and b are amplitudes such that a^2 + b^2 = 1 so that the probability of being in one of the two states is 1

Moderator NoteSimilar threads merged

What does that have to do with using referendums?

Moderator NoteWe don’t care where they’re posted. All material for discussion must be included here. Not as links, or uploads.

Yes, but I’m talking about your other comparison — you went on to talk about the shorter bat and choking up: “longer bat the striking surface is going to be going faster than it will with a stronger bat” — and you can’t say that the shorter bat will rotate at a slower or the same speed, either angular speed or tip speed. As far as the angle is concerned, a drawing would help significantly

I’m curious about what AI you’re using on this. Is it ChatGPT, or Gemini, or something else?

Moderator Note We use English, the current common language of science. Material for discussion must be posted here. Not via uploads.

If it’s tangible, what are these particles and what are their properties? How do you test to see if you’re right? How does an “inert” particle respond to stimuli? What interactions are involved? There was aether theory, but in trying to answer questions similar to the ones I asked, it failed to work.

Posts that lack scientific merit and have no math predate the rise of LLMs. Also the word salad of technojargon. The problem with alleged AI “tells” (such as “bear with me”) is that real people use such phrases. If they didn’t, the AI probably wouldn’t have picked it up, since it generates content based on its training. Like the alleged tell of using em-dashes (—) but people use them, too (professional writers and editors use them a fair amount) (As far as SFN is concerned, I’m not going to ban anyone based on that kind of flimsy evidence. That might mean some AI content persists, or sockpuppet accounts exist, because going on “vibes” just isn’t enough.)

Luc Turpin has been banned for repeatedly spamming us with agenda-driven (and now AI-generated) content

You forgot (or didn’t know) to strip the source identification tags out of your links. Looks like you either lied about using AI, or used it after you were warned not to.

Which is expressly against the rules of the forum. I have no idea why one would think so.

Is it meant to be an actual keyboard (it’s not a photo), or a schematic of sorts, just showing the layout? If it’s displayed on the English version of wikipedia, it’s reasonable that it would use English labels.

You forgot to translate this, but NKTm is not units. As I pointed out in your first thread, the two quantities have units of kg-m^2/s and kg^2-m/s^2 — they aren't the same, so adding them is nonsensical. Any number you generate is meaningless, so even if you had offered an equation that told us how it allegedly affected velocity, it would not be valid for anything. There’s no physical significance here (which would not be surprising if this were the result of an AI hallucination) As such, this is closed. Don’t bring this topic up again.

Another possibility is the phone numbers aren’t legit. I searched one and thought it matched up, but went back and realize it was the AI summary saying the number was “associated with” the company. That could mean that all the spam has convinced the AI that it’s the right number. So they’re leveraging the way AI is “trained“ - if you have a bazillion places saying 2+2=5, that’s going to eventually show up as a possible answer You call the number and they try to get your account info

I’m only guessing, but if you’re being paid by the post, it’s probably more efficient to stay at the same site (several of the accounts were sockpuppets) and perhaps we were thought to be an easy target if there are multiple spammers. More posts raises the SEO score; I don’t know if multiple posts at the same site are weighted equally or discounted. What I don’t understand is why a company would adopt this strategy, unless it’s a competitor trying to poison the goodwill.