swansont

Rutherford actually never proposed that; it’s the Bohr atom. Rutherford paved the way with the idea that a lot of the atom’s mass was concentrated in one spot (presumably the center) but never really developed any aspect of the model with details about the electrons. Since the Bohr model was superseded by QM, and people aren’t generally exposed to much QM (outside of those studying physics and chemistry) it’s not all the surprising to me that it’s such a common misconception. I think a lot of these are accepted and perpetuated by people whose education was limited - it’s outside their area of competence and sounds somewhat reasonable and jibes with what they remember from grade school or high school or otherwise taught at a young age and it never got challenged. Like there only being xx and xy chromosome combinations, and that’s all there is to it, thus limiting sex and gender to two categories. Anyway, one favorite is there is a permanent dark side of the moon, and another is that the moon is only visible at night. Others: the seasons are caused by distance from the sun, and there’s no gravity in space

I think it might be an interesting basis for a science fiction novel.

It’s like the demand for a medium for light to travel in, ca. 125+ years ago, just repackaged. “it’s how some other stuff works and my personal mental model requires it”

5.69 x 10^18 kg is not 5.69 million kg. Not even close You were told to post the material here. Not just upload a document You need to explain how S1 and S2 impact motion dynamics. You might also explain why you are using the same variable designator (S) for two quantities that don’t have the same units (kg-m^2/s and kg^2-m/s^2) Also using x to mean radial distance is unusual. It’s not position, and incorrect to call it that What would be more interesting, after you explain the motion impacts of your conjecture, is to retrodict the earth’s orbital parameters.

I strive for better than “not necessarily wrong” but you do you.

That would fit with the finding that legal punishment doesn’t deter crime, except that it’s not like not thinking you’ll get caught comes into play. Anyway, the description “god-fearing Christian” and hearing people say “If I weren’t a Christian I’d <do something>” suggests otherwise. Then again, people rationalize doing bad things all the time, and doing them in the name of god is part of that.

If you expect it will make up an answer, how is it “plausible”? Did a new definition drop?

It’s the ones that don’t that I was talking about

If this has never happened before, then such information isn’t in the AI’s training. Why on earth would you expect it to do anything but make up an answer?

I gave you the reference. You looked this up as part of your research, right? If it was online or in a digital document why would it take more than a few minutes?

I don’t see how that follows That’s the big question, now isn’t it?

But if the religious folks knew for sure that there was no supreme being and no eternal damnation, would their behavior change? How much of the behavior is driven by fear of divine judgement/punishment?

Meanwhile, you’re not answering relevant questions.

No. There is no need for that hypothesis, nor any compelling evidence to support it.

There is a reference that matches, Nat Rev Genet. 2003 Jun;4(6):457-69. doi: 10.1038/nrg1088. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12776215/ The abstract includes “Controlled and replicated experiments are using viruses, bacteria and yeast to investigate how their genomes and phenotypic properties evolve over hundreds and even thousands of generations” which aligns with the bit I quoted earlier, but not with your claims of anticipating anything or use of antibiotics And, of course, it is not an example of something from 2024/5, as you claimed. So, I have to ask: Did you find that reference and read it, or was it something you just repeated uncritically? With such a lengthy post, it should not be surprising that people would focus on smaller portions. That the theory of evolution is more developed now than before is not in doubt; all of science is like that. But nothing compels anyone to reconsider the main assumptions until you can present a more rigorous argument. Since you have a history of asserting this conclusion, I find it difficult to accept that you just arrived at it.

People who don’t understand the definition of theory in science always tell on themselves

It’s nice to know what conclusion you want, so you can choose the evidence you pretend to cite If it’s that experiment - “At one point, one of the populations exploded far beyond the parameters of the experiment. Lenski eventually discovered that this population had evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, an organic molecule which was part of the solution the E. coli lived in, but which E. coli cannot normally uptake” then it in no way supports the claim that anything was anticipated. Nor is there any mention of antibiotics. So it’s some other experiment or a massive misrepresentation

That’s why I want to see the actual paper, or a relevant quote. A lot seems to get lost in translation in these discussions, and the paper never says what is claimed

You forgot to include your references. “Elena & Lenski, 2003” is just a pointer to an actual citation. I’d also like to know how a publication from 2003 includes information from 2024/5

I didn’t say anything about predicting the mass; AFAICT this was a free parameter, though knowing some information did then allow for some predictions, and others based on some assumptions. I was referring to the existence of the particle/field. Again, I was referring to the prediction of the existence of the Higgs, not the mass.

I wasn’t addressing the paper, I was addressing your mistaken assertion about the physics of the Nobel.

You should read the science explainer linked in the release https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2023/10/advanced-physicsprize2022-4.pdf The first two paragraphs of page four, specifically. (unfortunately I can’t just copy/paste from the pdf) There’s no evidence that locality is violated. If you think it is, go find the signal. It will be some new interaction, the discovery of which is certainly worthy of a Nobel studiot is almost certainly referring to rule 2.7, specifically the part that says 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. … Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted.

I can’t think of a physics context where you would add the magnitude of forces acting in different directions; force is a vector quantity. You’d only add magnitudes as vector components. So it sounds like a poorly-worded attempt to ask for the magnitude of the net force, in a way that doesn’t tip off a possible answer where it doesn’t make sense to ask for the direction. There’s nothing physically meaningful about an answer of 300N, but I know that on occasion people will ask math questions where the physics is incorrect. (Feynman discussed one in one of his books involving finding an average temperature from a simple arithmetic mean. It also used a purple star as part of it, IIRC) Do tell.

One issue with the premise is that if Alice can travel to the other universe (even without time travel), they can’t be identical, since now there are two Alices in one, and none in the other. And if the travel is forced to be symmetric with identical entities, has anything actually changed?

But the EM radiation is unaffected, and you could do a long-term experiment with a larger starting point, like a microwave waveguide that's at cutoff, so as the waveguide shrinks, the transmission of the microwaves would be shut off. You’s be starting with something ~10k times bigger and looking at it for decades. Any reports of this happening? Also, can you address my objections from earlier in the thread? You seemed to start ignoring them when the answers got inconvenient