swansont

Evolution doesn’t say that it does. (see my earlier point about familiarity with the mainstream ideas you want to supplant, or extend, as studiot correctly added) Perhaps you could expend some effort shoring up your understanding of the theory without immediately trying to suggest changes to it Without a reasonably precise definition of purpose and description of how the idea would be falsifiable, such discussion is pointless. So what? Where is it written that conscious decisions can’t affect survival, and consequently, reproductive success? You’re arguing against a strawman.

What’s the length scale in the diagram? Is it fixed, or wavelength-dependent? If the latter, let’s assume a visible wavelength. 500 nm. What’s the point of moving on? If the basis of the idea is flawed, how can anything built on it be valid?

Not here, that’s for sure.

Moderator NoteThat’s a big hypothesis, but there’s no actual science here, and this is a science discussion site. Take your empty AI promises somewhere else.

The board software is automatically creating links, which can be quite annoying when there’s a typo where no space is entered after a full stop.So ⬅️ you get an attempt at a link, even though it may not go to a valid address, or goes to a questionable one. (that link address is for sale, BTW) Can we please disable this “feature”?

Is there any evidence that photons travel such paths? What causes them to change direction? Can another photon travel some distance away from the central plane, where the density is different? How does that happen? Really?

If there is objective evidence, how much opportunity have you wasted in not providing it? What you have presented is a belief, and the problem with that is that anything can be interpreted to support it. It does not count if it’s not objective. That conclusion simply does not follow. If the references don’t exist, there is no content, so there is nothing that can be said to be valid.

How can you have compressed and rarified regions in a completely filled space?

✅ Check boxes are available in the emoji menu 🔷 As are a host of other icons

I also have to wonder whose summaries. All of that would have to be linked. Right. I wonder how such things are falsifiable. Seems like concluding the flashing light in the sky is an alien.

I had a similar thought. We’d had a few presentations that were very organized in outline form with similar icons. It felt very Microsoft-word to me (clippy resurrected as copilot) but I don’t have (nor would I use) such software. So I thought it could be a signature of one or more of the BS engines. I certainly take it as a red flag.

That a tiny margin elected a felon speaks to mindset of the voters rather than the candidate.

No. Speculations merely means that it’s not mainstream. It does not mean guess or unsupported conjecture. Rigor is still required - scientific evidence, specific predictions, falsifiability. It also means familiarity with the mainstream ideas you want to supplant, and you’ve repeatedly fallen short of that.

Without math, how do you make specific predictions? Lots of models of e.g. gravity would say it’s attractive. That it varies inversely with distance. But 1/r, 1/r^2, or some fractional power? All have different implications. You need math to weed out the incorrect ones. How does light know to restrict itself to three dimensions? What’s special about the fourth one? Momentum is a property, not a substance.

It’s a start. But it’s still someone else - not you - making the argument, and all the material is somewhere else. “Go read this book” is fine for a book club site, I guess, but we expect discussion to take place here. And you’ve been here long enough that you can’t claim ignorance of the rules.

AI is already being used, but it’s what is called machine learning. Got a bunch of data and want to see if there’s a subtle pattern? Computers can do that. LLMs can only re-hash what we’ve already written down, and does so imperfectly (to say the least) and they don’t think, so I’m not seeing how anyone can say they could advance science.

But he’s a recidivist.

You were asked to start with the math, and haven’t posted it. Is there any? You keep mentioning a fourth dimension. Is this a spatial dimension? There are very good reasons why we think there are only three “macroscopic” ones - the 1/r^2 behavior of things from a point source, e.g. light intensity or the strength of gravity (https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-does-our-universe-have-more-than-3-spatial-dimensions/) Of course, we’d need the math of the interactions to do more than have vague discussions

How would you know if they have such employees?

The primary issue isn’t how convincing the words are. If it’s just fabricated, it has no merit. LLMs are programmed to make plausible-sounding explanations, but they don’t check to see if they are true. That’s why we don’t allow them here. The first thing Google lists to many inquiries is an AI summary, and is usually labeled as such. Other results have links to the source, which you should be able to click on and go to, and to copy and paste. If there’s no link, it’s the AI slop. It’s pretty obvious you were using the AI summary.

Cuomo isn’t governor anymore

Stop tap-dancing around this. Present something substantial. It’s put up or shut up time.

It’s not clear that your proposal leads to stable orbits. It actually shouldn’t, since it would represent a deviation from the 1/r^2 required form, but one can only make this claim if you have equations to solve. And it appears you were making numbers up. Or something was, because this whole thing smells of being churned out by an AI BS engine. Without the equations this idea is in an embryonic stage, far too undeveloped to comply with our requirements for discussion.

AI does not qualify as a “best means” I can bring an opposing viewpoint to a lot of topics if I’m allowed to just make stuff up, or use an algorithm that does.

I’m saying that the AI you used made it all up. The articles don’t exist. It’s all fiction Prove that it isn’t