swansont

No, of course not.

! Moderator Note “The internet is a big place and I am going to find other people who misunderstand the third law in the way I misunderstand it” (I’ve noticed engineers tend to be more likely to misunderstand it; saying "reaction force" when they mean "opposing force" and apparently thinking they are the same) We went six pages on this, and I see no reason to indulge you with further discussion

It’s science fiction. You can’t assume they are following actual physical law. Any paradox you come up with is a failing of the plot, not science.

You need only drop to the productivity section of your link “By raising productivity, labor-saving technologies can increase the average industrial rate of profit rather than lowering it, insofar as fewer workers can produce vastly more output at a lower cost, enabling more sales in less time” “assuming value is tied to the amount of labor necessary” What if this assumption is not true?

! Moderator Note Since you are engaging without establishing that the premise is true, this is locked.

! Moderator Note Our rule is about making the discussion accessible to all while guarding against spammers. I’m at a loss as to how “original thinking” enters into it. You don’t get to choose to follow only some of the guidelines.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7: Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. You were told this before: post it here, nobody should have to click anything to participate in the discussion.

The claim that a hash rate requires a certain amount of power is contradicted by the later (correct) admission that power use depends on the efficiency of the computer. ”the bitcoin network in 2020 consumes 120 gigawatts (GW) per second.” muddles units. Not a credible article, IMO

! Moderator Note Provide evidence (from mainstream science) that consciousness arise from within the thalamus. As I had asked.

Is there context for this absurd (power is not energy) answer? Can you provide a link?

! Moderator Note I’m not saying anything about the topic, so this is moot. The problem is that you are asserting things as fact, and asking questions based on it, and that’s unacceptable. It is an example of an argument not made in good faith. You had a thread where you asserted unequivocally that the seat of the consciousness is in the striatum. Now we have this. You’re making it up as you go. That’s not going to fly. It’s not science.

! Moderator Note What is the evidence that it does? You simply have to stop posing questions based on unsubstantiated premises. IOW, you can’t ask how aliens built the moon until you establish that aliens actually built the moon.

So it sounds like there are a number of people who spend money to mine but don’t get any cryptocurrency in return, and they are the ones doing the bulk of the paying.

But that’s not what happens in capitalism. We don’t share, we buy and sell. If there’s more money in circulation held by more people, prices tend to go up.

But then leaves would have very little actual value owing to inflation. The wheelbarrow full of "cash" (as in the stories from Germany after WWI) to buy a loaf of bread. Everybody can't be rich.

Our rules require a model, or falsifiable predictions.

You were claiming it permeates space. Any isotropic distribution has no effect. Any residual effect - which you need to quantify - would be in the direction of any non-isotropic exotic matter. Where is it located? The interaction would vary in direction over a sidereal day, as it’s in the direction of that mass. Is this what is observed? What is the mathematical expression of this force? How much exotic matter is in the earth, attracting satellites? How much is in the moon? I suspect once we start quantifying this relationship, which is an absolute requirement here, this will quickly show inconsistencies. You need to provide a mathematical model, not hand-waves.

That would tend to cancel. It also means you should get attraction to a specific direction/location in space, not toward each other. Newtonian gravity makes specific predictions, which agree with observation. You need to have an equally precise model to challenge it. Not some hand-wave.

Which body of exotic matter would explain the results?

They were doing tests on Osmium (i.e. the device is not made of Osmium), and in any event, Astatine is the rarest naturally occurring element. Osmium is the rarest stable naturally occurring element. (and commercially available was not one of the claims being addressed)

Would this be made of unobtanium, or impervium? Infinitely strong or infinitely rigid materials do not exist. Citation needed. Literature I find all say that these high pressures are only achievable with diamond anvil cells. Is a factor of ~7 big enough? "the researchers investigated the behaviour of the metal osmium at pressures of up to 770 Gigapascals (GPa)" https://phys.org/news/2015-08-high-pressure-secrets-osmium.html

! Moderator Note The topic of the discussion was not the origin of COVID, so this has been split

! Moderator Note It's not either-or You have posted an unsupported premise, made a false dichotomy, and the "Darvinist" (sic) comment has a hint of an agenda. ! Moderator Note This was posted in evolution. So, as this is a minor disaster as a science discussion, I'm locking it. You may repost a question in philosophy, but do better with the framing

Then your hypothesis predicts that the Cavendish experiment should not have worked - lead spheres should not attract each other. But they did.

You’re not answering the question. How do you determine if something is made of normal matter or exotic matter? I have a rock. How do I tell if it’s normal matter, or how much exotic matter is in it?