swansont

No. You can’t use AI to create the content you use in your discussion.

Moderator NoteThis would violate our rules. From rule 2.13: AI-generated content must be clearly marked. Failing to do so will be considered to be plagiarism and posting in bad faith. In other words, 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.

You said Hamas has committed war crimes, and I agree. So what does that have to do with Israel indiscriminately killing the inhabitants of Gaza, i.e. genocide?

Hamas runs Gaza, in much the same way that Al Capone ran Chicago. It’s not like the people have much of a choice in the matter. Equating Hamas with the people living there is the opposite of nuance.

I don’t see where you gave units for Elasticity, Plasticity and Rigidity. Can you just answer the question? We want you to provide us with enough information to test it. Right now you’re telling us there’s something really cool inside a box. Show us what’s inside the box.

Same thing for life. But that has no direct connection with dimensions. That does not follow. We don’t consider a dead person to have consciousness, and it has the same building blocks as a live person. The scientific issue is what is special about the configurations that do have consciousness.

The units have to work, too. What are the units of these variables?

My understanding is that it’s where the expansion velocity is equal to the escape velocity of the collection of mass. So it’s not what Hubble and others describe as expansion. Get yourself a new name.

I only used insects as an example because you had mentioned a spider and insects. Bringing up our closest relatives is not exactly representative of animals in general, especially in the context of my earlier comment about voluntary actions/premeditation.

The GOP has been pushing this idea for some time, with the idea that the US is a Christian nation. It’s not, and most of the people in this administration only give lip service to the religion they claim to follow. It’s pretty clear that they are not familiar with the teachings of it, echoing their ignorance of the Constitution. They use it as a facade to seize and exert power. (see e.g. the new Pope’s feedback to JD Vance’s claims about Catholicism)

Nobody has attacked your character or integrity, and if you think being questioned is insulting then you probably don’t have the temperament for doing science. Ideas get scrutinized to see if they match with observation. That this is your life’s work is irrelevant. You don’t get points for effort. You should have gotten feedback sooner to ensure you weren’t going down the wrong path. And yes, that’s what this section of the forum is all about: informal peer review of non-mainstream science ideas. Markus has given you a problem to solve with your model. I had been thinking of a slightly different example, that of the deflection of the path of light. Newtonian physics gives a different prediction than general relativity; quantifying the prediction is how people were able to determine which model was correct. It’s not enough to say that the sun will deflect the path. It needs to be quantified, which is why we need to see the math.

It doesn’t choose to not be hungry. And the issue of sentience alone doesn’t address my point. I laid out a broader set of conditions. The fact that the gharial only eats fish when it’s hungry satisfies those conditions.

Nobody is claiming that you don’t compare your model with observation. Then the data are not defined by the models. The data doesn’t know what model you’re later going to use. “F=GMm/r^2 allows you to actually do tests and launch probes to other planets. “Things are attracted to each other” doesn’t have sufficient power to do that. “If I asked you to prove me wrong about the solid universe you would use current models as a basis for proving me wrong” We would compare your predictions with experimental results. i.e. the data. But since the data agree with the current models,that would be equivalent. Also, you need to show ypu’re right - you own the burden of proof here. But you keep stalling. Where’s the beef?

Decisions would have to include the ability to decide not to do things, as I had suggested. And self-awareness. I don’t think the fact that we’re animals is relevant. Can an insect choose to become vegan? Does an insect kill out of passion? Does it kill because it doesn’t like the victim’s politics or religion?

Speaking of problems, I just saw a short documentary on the Ronan Point collapse and the associated issues with the design and corner-cutting during construction.

But humans are sentient, and do most of these things voluntarily

What does this have to do with the topic? edit: I assume your downvote means you aren’t going to explain yourself

https://scienceforums.net/topic/135919-using-the-quote-function-2025-edition/ Without math you can’t make specific predictions or analysis. A physics model without math is just a story Data are data. Changing data would be scientific malpractice. The math is the model. s = vt is a model of displacement under constant velocity. Your data are the values of the variables you measure, e.g. distances and times. Those data do not change even if you apply a different model, e.g. non-zero acceleration.

Press the quote button at the bottom of the post, which will quote everything. Delete extraneous material, please or Highlight the text you want to quote, and click on quote or Copy/paste, hit the + inside the black circle in the top ribbon, and click on “wrap in quote” Hit return/enter to move the cursor out of the quote box. Please avoid responding inside the quote box To break up the quoted material, to respond to a specific section, put the cursor in the text box and hit return/enter a few times, and it will split the quote box in two, with a place for you to respond in between them.

If one wanted to inject some actual science into the discussion, one could estimate the power needed to generate one of these signals and then discuss the implausibility that it was generated by inhabitants of some planet.

Which, of course, it was. People measure length without relying on time-of-flight of light. Meter sticks and tape measures. Surveyors do it over significant distances.

This being a science site we want science. That means a model, which you have not provided, and testable predictions. Are there any, in your wall of text? This is a bunch of crap. Models either fit the data or they don’t. We don’t need a preaching pep-talk. We need to see that your equations fit the data we already have. You do have equations, right?

Not a compelling argument that it’s worth my time.

I, for one, don’t care much about the origin story of most businesses. I haven’t been to a McDonald’s in years because it’s not particularly healthy food, and when I’ve had fast food other options have been more convenient.

It’s not like any of this is an absolute. What works better for you doesn’t necessarily work better for someone else. You are confusing ”makes sense” with “makes sense to me” And, like many people who show up here with diagrams, you overestimate how intuitive it is, likely because you are already familiar with the details. I don’t understand this claim. You don’t include them in the 1-18 numbering system, either. Or am I just imagining the numbers 19-32?