swansont

Then stopping immigration isn’t the fix.

I gave the results based on percentages, not raw population. You said “One might also have expected at least some of these immigrants to have dispersed throughout Europe.” and I confirmed that they, in fact, have done so. Several counties have taken in more, relative to their “native” population That “the asylum convention require the seeker to seek in the first free country they reach, not the last.”? I didn’t see how it comes into play. Please explain how it’s relevant.

I’m not sure how that’s relevant to the point I was making, but part of it was that minorities are often segregated from the existing society, not integrated. Even when they went past NY, they tended to do it. Haven’t they? It’s not like this is the only place that has an anti-immigration stance. I’ve read about similar sentiments in Germany (AfD) and France (National Rally). The Fidesz only just lost power in Hungary According to the Wikipedia article, Germany, France, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, Belgium and Ireland have a higher percentage of immigrant population than the UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_immigrant_and_emigrant_population I know that in the US, polls have shown that people overestimate the fraction of the population that belong to various subgroups (Muslim, Jewish, transgender, Asian, etc.) I wonder if that same effect is going on here - people perceiving more immigrants than there actually are. https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/41556-americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population

Are they threatening to kick out the Germans, French, Russians, etc.?

The issue is not inherently white vs brown/black, it’s inside vs outside. You pick what constitutes”inside” and everybody else is outside. In this case it’s skin color, but that’s not always the case. In the US, similar things happen. New York City had Little Italy and Irish neighborhoods. Other nationalities settle(d) in groups, too, in various parts of the country. Immigrants tend to congregate, with others of a common language and culture - the very thing that the insiders are leaning on to exclude the outsiders. I think there used to be a divide between Normans and Saxons across the pond. I wonder why that’s not still a thing.

Is there any evidence they read and understand these books? I’ve not read the books by the authors in question - are they proposing theories of everything or describing the state of physics and why we don’t have one?

Why is it important? I’d like to know actual reasons, not the ones tied to racist political fear-mongering.

OTOH I dislike big sites, since it reduces the chance to contribute. I’m not a fan of posts that cover the same ground that previous answers have covered. Also ones with poor moderation where shouting can be used in place of reasoned discussion, and there’s little to deter that behavior.

To me, that’s ego. I think the reason it’s ToE rather than other areas of physics is that any specific area, e.g. relativity or QM, requires some amount of detailed knowledge but a crackpot ToE is often more of an overview, lacking detail, which is one of the reasons it fails to gain traction. I don’t recall who started it, but one standard response here is to ask to calculate the parameters of a geostationary orbit, which they can never do. The ones who dabble in relativity and QM often have somewhat more of a clue about how deep the rabbit hole goes. The ones building perpetual motion devices don’t, though, but I think most of them are tinkerers If you go outside of physics, to evolution, most of them are driven by ideology and have little familiarity with the details of the theory

Oh, why do crackpots focus on this? Ego, perhaps? Dunning-Kruger, to some degree, is fairly common. People who are unfamiliar with the subtleties of a subject tend to overestimate their mastery. I think the “theory of everything” crows we see here are generally neophytes in terms of science. They don’t know what a theory is and most are of the “don’t do math” variety. They’ve just fixated on science instead of, say, politics. I’m sure there are equally clueless folks who “know” exactly what’s wrong with the world and how to fix it.

Who is “we”? I don’t think all that many are working on such efforts. I think there’s a certain satisfaction to identify principles that govern how the universe behaves, and knowing those can allow us to predictive power that might not manifest itself with smaller, unconnected parts. Epicycles worked, but Newton’s gravitation is more powerful. Same thing for showing that electricity and magnetism are connected

I have to decline. Dealing with the board software is not in my wheelhouse, and my long COVID issues are a huge impediment in this old dog learning new tricks

I would expect that invoking GR in the explanation of an Atwood machine (the context of the OP’s snark and/or insinuation) would be…unusual. But we’re talking about the functioning of the forum here, not physics Posts have been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/140555-gr-and-energy-conservation-split-from-so-how-long-do-posts-last-that-disprove-energy-conservation/#comment-1311529

All it would have to do is sufficiently bury it, or make so that it’s covered in water. There aren’t that many places where we dig down too far. It’s apparently a Dr. Who reference, in which the Silurians are an ancient reptilian race.

But how widespread is that, and how easily is it erased by geological processes if it happened 100-200 million years ago? IOW, what evidence are we leaving behind that will survive that long, and what is the spatial extent of that? As the article points out, urban areas make up only ~1% of the earth’s surface area

I’v posited in a thread or two about the difficulty of technology arising too early in the earth’s history, because at some point you’d have little in the way of oil, or coal, as a bridge to more advanced ways of generating power. Here’s another related topic https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/25/climate/silurian-hypothesis-another-civilization-before-humans? “If an advanced civilization had lived on Earth millions of years ago, powered themselves with energy and wiped themselves out, would we know? Would they have left traces of their presence etched into the record of our planet?” It looks like they looked at several lines of evidence that might show up, or would be easy to miss. Tectonic activity would mask/erase some evidence, and if we think in three dimensions, much of our planet is unexplored. The Silurian Hypothesis https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/silurian-hypothesis-would-it-be-possible-to-detect-an-industrial-civilization-in-the-geological-record/77818514AA6907750B8F4339F7C70EC6 I wonder about what might be missing, or changed from what we’d expect - missing oil and coal deposits where you’d expect, or nuclear waste, which would not have the natural isotopic abundances, regardless of whether it was still radioactive (not necessarily in some identifiable container, though you’d expect they’d have used one). That would include finding depleted uranium. (along the lines of evidence of the natural reactor found at Oklo) The paper mentions the possibility of finding markers of a society that had a nuclear-weapons exchange

Our new hosting provider has apparently archived older posts and they don’t show up as part of one’s content. But posts that don’t exist don’t show up either

Some of this might be the incremental increase, happening in areas where water scarcity is a bigger problem, and getting caught in deception, such as the Georgia center using 30 million gallons that was unreported (also power use deception) so not wanting to trust the assurances, and the reality that it’s not just a local issue. You read about it happening in one place and realize it can happen in your locality. And “we don’t use that much water” is not zero, as the Utah kerfuffle shows https://greatsaltlakenews.org/latest-news/salt-lake-tribune/can-utah-become-a-data-center-hub-without-draining-its-water-supply

What is this immovable post you are talking about? We know the earth’s rotation rate is not constant. Clocks have tracked this for many decades in astronomical observations Patently absurd. Depends on what system you investigate. If I describe e.g. circular motion, there’s an r that shows up. This isn’t youtube Linear momentum is only conserved when there’s no net external force.

I assume English is not your first language, because these explanations make little sense.

To align with my discussion it would be the cars that came after it. You get an initial jump in productivity, but what happens to the cost of the capability that came in the few decades afterwards? For cars it might be flat, since cars got faster and added some features

I’m not an economist, so I confess to not knowing the distinction, but: costs less over time when adjusted for inflation. i.e. it would have the effect of reducing inflation, since it would tend to cancel other positive i pacts Any of the technological advances show a jump in productivity, but what I’m looking for is after that. Shipping might be one - as technology was refined ships got bigger, so the cost to ship a certain unit (size or weight) of something has likely gone down. Commercial airline travel seems to have followed this; it costs roughly the same to fly as it did decades ago, but that still falls far short of the trajectory of computing power

This points to why your personal expertise is insufficient to make pronouncements about odds and probabilities. If your collection was representative, no place would be “known for” a particular type. If you were here to engage in discussion in good faith we could go into detail, but uploading documents and telling people to read them indicates you are not, and is not how we conduct discussions here (per rule 2.7) This is not a platform for lecturing, and this is the second thread in a row I’ve had to point this out.

It’s true that mass production was a huge productivity increase, but economies of scale from it have had a much more limited effect. I bought a new car in 1984 for $10,500, which as about the average and nowadays a new car averages close to $50k in the US. (to be fair, it’s a bigger car that represents the average) Cars get better mileage and are in many ways safer, and have more bells and whistles, but it’s still subject to inflation. … The background thought for all this is that it seems that inflation at many times has been tamer than predicted and I wonder if it’s because of the deflation from the widespread adoption of semiconductor tech.

Make your case on how any one of these was deflationary