swansont

In addition to studiot’s critique, you talk about microphotons with explaining the distinction between them and photons. One moves in a straight line but the other in a wavy path, with unexplained density difference of the microparticles. And you talk about the structure of microparticles but how can they have structure unless they’re built of something smaller? This is all narrative and no rigor, with all the appearance that you’re making it up as you go. That doesn’t fly here. We have expectations of what get discussed here, and this does not meet them.

After a fashion. It details his forays into opening safes at Los Alamos. What we would call social engineering, plus some technological insight

They aren’t thought-out predictions. It’s the equivalent of clickbait, or (in Sci-fi) it’s just something to move a plot along. Colonizing the moon, or Mars, are pie-in-the-sky ideas but not things that stand up to scrutiny when you start looking at it realistically. All the technological details, the motivations, the economics, the politics, and so on.

I won’t worry about Skynet as long as I keep getting notifications offering to sell me more items like what I just bought, like I’m going to binge-buy vacuum cleaners.

IIRC, it’s included in “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman”

I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean, or how it answers my question. You promised answers in your next post in your previous post. Stop stalling.

The Cretaceous loses points for presiding over the fall of the dinosaurs, which is not a trivial shortcoming for a golden age.

Concur - belief is not science, and we;re a science discussion site. Got a mathematical model that can be compared with evidence? We’ll be happy to discuss.

There are two types of people: those who divide people into two types, and those who don't. Unfortunately, what you believe doesn’t count as science, and there are plenty of examples of things that don’t fit into this kind of sorting. (e.g. Animal, vegetable, mineral) Categorizing is something we impose on nature to try and simplify and understand it, but nature is not bound by it.

Moderator NoteWithout a reasonably precise definition of purpose, there is nothing to discuss. Too much hand-waving. If such a definition is provided, and proper evidence is included, a discussion is possible in a new thread.

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.