swansont

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

True only in the sense that you can’t link to articles that don’t exist. More than that might happen.

Here’s an article in Nature Ecology & Evolution that’s not open access. You can still get the citation and read the abstract https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-025-02701-y The abstract starts (not doing the whole thing for brevity) “The bidirectional relationship between plant species richness and community biomass is often variable and poorly resolved in natural grassland ecosystems, impeding progress in predicting impacts of environmental changes. Most biological communities have long-tailed species abundance distributions (for example, biomass, cover, number of individuals), a general property that may provide predictive power for species richness and community biomass. Here we show mathematical relationships between community characteristics and the abundance of dominant species arising from long-tailed distributions and test these predictions using observational and experimental data from 76 grassland sites across 6 continents.”

They don’t, if they don’t exist. Bollocks. Real papers have their abstracts available in any reputable journal

Links required. Actual abstracts required. Nothing you’ve posted disproves the notion that this was made up by AI. Searching on the titles gives no results. Searching “explores how bacteria in colonies can anticipate environmental changes and adapt accordingly” gives no results. They don’t appear to exist on the internet. (except in this thread) Prove that it’s just my browser’s Google that’s broken.

We take it for granted because repeated experiment/observation shows it to be the case. Seems counterintuitive because we’re used to what we can see with our naked eye, and the quantum world tends to not behave classically.

The claim is “According to Shettleworth (2010), cognitive traits have been shaped by natural selection to support flexible and adaptive responses.” and my response is, “Wow, being shaped by natural selection. How…ordinary” (that last part meant to be read in Lili von Stupp’s voice)

If the journal is online, then we can read the abstract. Yes, we are going to check your work. Linking to them costs nothing. You found them once, right? (unless an AI barfed it up) I can’t find them with a search, which is quite curious. But the journals themselves exist. And basing conclusions on abstracts is a very dicey practice. Lots of details are in the paper that give the results context. Let’s focus on these three. Where did you originally read their abstracts? I get nothing in Google. It also looks like a summary rather than an abstract. Like what a LLM would make up.

References need a page number, and if it’s a journal, an issue number or month

It being a matter of biology* being a big reason *and not being amenable to being modeled as a harmonic oscillator

That doesn’t tell us what it is. “how easily an object resists or responds to motion” is a quantifiable thing. In Newtonian physics, for example, mass is resistance to acceleration, so that F = ma. Since we know a =dv/dt and v=dx/dt, we can solve for various parameters of motion. You need to give us equations that allow one to do the same thing. You keep telling us what you can do with it, without telling us how. You’re running out of chances to do this. It’s put up or shut up time. LOL

How much physics have you studied, as a student in 10th grade?

Moderator NoteWe don’t allow such AI material to be the basis of discussion. We’re happy to discuss what you have come up with, and you are free to ask questions and learn. Also, material for discussion must be posted here. Not via links or uploads.

Which is not even close to NASA’s number. Where did the mass go? This doesn’t really explain much, since you haven’t told us how this “inertia field” impacts motion.

No, I’m proposing a hypothetical scenario where there’s no belief; no reason to be religious. Like too many people, I think. All talk, very little action.

My understanding was that this was to address the so-called grocery deserts, where there are no grocery stores within a reasonable distance, and if so, these wouldn’t really compete with local businesses.

Trump does not appear to care. Those who are appalled by this are generally not surprised, and those who are surprised weren’t paying attention. And maybe a quarter of the country (perhaps even more) is cheering it on.

Alternately, the OP can explain what they mean by a TOE. Though if it’s even more aggressive than this…good luck.