swansont

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.

Get away from US MSM sources, especially anything anything owned by Murdoch or Sinclair, avoid punditry in favor of news, and the quality improves considerably

Science fiction is not a prediction of the future. I’d limit this to actual attempts at prediction. And a lot of “predictions” were tries at generating reader engagement and unfettered by scientific reality. A good science discussion could be had in looking at why the predictions (like jetpacks and flying cars) being common. Anyway, offices got a lot close to paperless over the first few decades of this century. I did my part - I was a big part as we transitioned our purchasing forms from being paper with literal carbon copies, filled out in triplicate, to pdf files with just one paper copy, to pdfs with digital signatures all done online. (once I learned how to make pdf forms, I became the go-to guy for converting paper forms to digital for colleagues in both HR and purchasing. They were very helpful in clearing administrative logjams for us, so helping them was a no-brainer. My bosses were very supportive of me spending some time on admin work because of that help we got and because they realized that streamlining the processes would save us more time than I spent in the long term) I buy stuff online all the time. Paperless is not something we’re waiting for. There will always be slow adopters but that’s human nature, not a technology failure.

It’s why they could never kill Hitler. Temporal congestion. All of the assassins crash into each other.

But there’s no interaction. I can only go by what you post; made no judgement about what you didn’t. (uploaded files don’t count) I look forward to seeing the testable model posted on these pages.

Which is very suggestive that you used AI for more than “text finalizing” edit: I missed that you stated that it “helped” with the research (apologies to all, I could have saved us some time) From rule 2.13: you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made. Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions.

Certain “why” questions are outside of science; they can’t be tested, so any proposal is just so much hot air. But we know why the states of entangled particles have their particular correlation - because conservation laws apply. And conserved quantities like momentum are related to symmetries. Momentum is tied to spatial translation symmetry, energy to time translation. Noether’s theorems show this. As I said, you will eventually dig down to the point where you can’t answer why, but your apparent unawareness of these existing answers suggests you need to dig a lot more before you start lecturing others.

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.