swansont

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

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)