swansont

You do understand I’m a moderator, right? That part of this is trying to get you to follow the rules? Having you flip-flop about whether there’s any physics to discuss is a violation of rule 2.12, and I was practically begging you to not respond to me.

I joined because you pulled a bait-and-switch by implying that there was physics involved. I’m trying to exit the conversation, since you’ve made it clear that there isn’t. You could just leave it alone, but you won’t. It’s looking more like trolling with each post. Take the hint and just address the cognitive issues, from others’ posts.

Tariffs will/have shut down some shipping, yes. COVID did the same thing. It will be a while before domestic manufacturing could possibly fix the issue. “be minimalist” is a privileged assessment, because it assumes that buying less means reducing discretionary spending. What of people in or near poverty?

Doesn’t the patient’s emotional comfort matter? Also, is this restriction worldwide? I don’t think it is. That brings up the question of what countries restrict them, and what cultural and possibly legal influences come into play.

From my perspective - physics - it’s semantics. It’s your job to explain why this distinction is imporrtant. Posting in physics implies you wish to discuss physics. It’s clear you do not. There’s no reason to continue along these lines.

But that’s a decision you can only make for yourself. You can’t order someone else to be comfortable in a certain situation. And I don’t think you want to do any additional thing that would make women avoid cancer detection screening. Also, there is a zero-sum game in employment. If there are professions that have a disproportionate fraction of men, there must end up being at least one with a disproportionate fraction of women. That’s unavoidable.

You’re arguing semantics Untrue, according to relativity You’re not making the proper comparison. Noon is a point, and length is not. The proper correspondence would be a single point in space, which, if you were moving, you would not experience that point again unless you changed direction. Which you can do trivially in coordinate space, but not in time. Um, you originally posted this in physics, and complained when the topic was moved out of physics. To reverse course once again does not suggest good faith discussion. As above, good faith discussion means you need to present a consistent position. So be it. No physics, all perception. MiB memory erasure, it would seem.

The precision of a prediction is limited by the precision of the data that goes into the model, and the model itself, which came up in the discussion. We’re talking about a discrepancy of ~5 parts in 250 (the temperature in the formula is in Kelvins) 2% is fairly precise under these circumstances.

I don’t know which talks you’re referring to; there are a limited number if scenarios where time travel (returning to an earlier time) would be hypothetically possible We traverse time just sitting around. It’s noon. One minute later, it’s 12:01 “Physical phenomenon” and “physical entity” carry different implications. We can measure time. We can affect time in some ways, because time is relative to the environment you’re in (specifically your motion and gravitational potential) Physics does not require this to be the case. Can you store length somewhere? Length is a physical phenomenon that subject to certain physical laws, similar to time. Many of the same arguments one applies to time must apply to length.

Mainly I paid attention to your declaration that it’s not physics, and that it has to do with perception. (also the complete lack of physics in the post) It ended up in speculations because (from your own presentation) it is new, rather than being a discussion of some established science. I don’t think any mainstream physics says that time is a physical entity. Can you hold it in a container? (Jim Croce wanted to do that)

It’s also basically in the same orbit, though it has a different albedo (but also assumes things about the earth’s albedo which might not hold under those conditions) A few degrees is not a big difference given the assumptions being made.

So it should not have been posted in physics. Moved to speculations. Sounds like you want to overwrite memories, which is in no way time travel

If you want to learn to do QM, math is necessary, but learning about QM, not so much. But you do need to understand things about energy and momentum (angular momentum in particular) The undergrad QM class I took had a fair amount of history in it, to ease the students into the really new concepts of quantized values and treating things as waves. One reason the Bohr model is still discussed.

Since the moon lacks an atmosphere, “like the moon” means no greenhouse effect. You might not like the way the information was presented, but it’s not factually incorrect.

That’s moving goal posts - nobody said a wolf with 20 dire wolf edits isn’t a wolf. It’s just not a dire wolf. Homo habilis with 20 sapiens edits would still be Homo, but would an Australopithecine? We don’t know the genetics, but they seem closer to Homo than Pan does, and 20 edits certainly doesn’t get them to Homo sapiens.

It’s OK to say “we don’t know” Science finds stuff out, but there’s still stuff out there we don’t know. It’s why scientists still have jobs “Science can’t (yet) explain it, therefore God” is the god-of-the-gaps. As Neil deGrasse Tyson put it (paraphrasing) it makes God an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance. I.e. the more we learn, the more God diminishes. Not very omnipotent.

There are species that could be genetically closer to Homo sapiens that are not classified as such. Any of our Homo predecessors, and perhaps even Australopithecines. They have human genes that chimpanzees lack.

Attack ideas/arguments, not people. This crosses a line.

Because some people want simple answers to questions they don’t want to think about very much. Others are uncomfortable with the notion that there isn’t some grand plan - probably the same set that proclaim that without a supreme deity life can have no purpose. ID is just an offshoot that tries to leverage the credibility of science and get past any gatekeepers trying to keep religion separate.

I refer you to the item I quoted: “would a chimpanzee with 20 gene edits be human?”

Unlike people in the Monty Python sketch, Mrs. Tilly like both woody and tinny words

I’s hard to understand what motivates people, but I imagine they get some kind of a thrill. Similar to how trolls enjoy stirring things up by saying outrageous things, perhaps.

Like I said, he’s fictional. Meant as a generic example in a request for more information. i.e. someone that you might identify

No, she likes Sally the saloonkeeper.

Reasons for banning are rules violations. Less serious violations will get you warnings and then a suspension, which allows an opportunity to modify the offending behavior. But if the pattern is not broken it ends in a ban. Multiple moderators typically concur before this happens, which means there might be a lag in time between an infraction and mod action. Serious infractions can mean an instant ban - posting porn, bigoted and/or profanity-laced diatribes or attacks, spamming, making a second account to avoid a suspension or ban. These do not necessarily require a second opinion. The mechanics? A moderator clicks a few things. Spam-banning usually includes the hiding of the offending threads. I will note that being wrong is not a rules violation, but ignoring correction/feedback or reasonable requests for corroboration (valid research citations) quickly becomes soapboxing, which is.