swansont

7 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

In other words: the 'now' could never be reached. Because it would take an infinitely long time to reach the now from an infinitely distant past.

Sounds like one of Zeno’s paradoxes.

This, of course, has nothing to do with consciousness. There’s plenty of evidence that time passed without the benefit of conscious entities being around. But don’t let facts get in the way.

“For the first time since the mid-20th century, over 95 percent of this year’s planned new electric-generating capacity in the United States is zero-carbon.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/04/11/the-next-phase-of-electricity-decarbonization-planned-power-capacity-is-nearly-all-zero-carbon/

5 hours ago, Swudu Susuwu said:

Sources: https://swudususuwu.substack.com/p/biomimetic-robots-run-off-of-proton

11 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

I am trying to understand ( my humble opinion is that  Big Bang theory is a nonsense) if someone smarter than me could explain if our universe was infinite all the time or was finite or wasn't at all  13.8 billions years ago . After that explanation I have other ask

2 hours ago, Time Traveler said:

We humans live in the present but we don't notice the present...what we perceive as the present is actually a mixture of past tenses
In order to understand, some basic notions from classical physics must be recalled
Color perception
White light from the sun is partially reflected (a part is absorbed) from colored objects...for example, only yellow light is reflected from a yellow object while red, orange, green, blue, indigo and violet are absorbed by the yellow object .
The time when the information reaches the eye is:
t= distance divided by the speed of light
An object at 10 m ...t=10 m /(300 000 000m/s)
An object 1 mm away; t=0.001m/(300 000 000m/s)
We notice that the reflected light, the carrier of the image of the object, never reaches the eye simultaneously from two objects. We observe the past but our perceive is we "observe" the present.
From the eye to the brain where the information is coded, the speed of information transfer is the same, a finite speed.
The brain makes a "correction", it lies to us, that we observe the present when in fact we observe a mixture of past tenses

This isn’t an issue of color perception.

Your body can’t process information at the nanosecond level, and your brain’s processing is meant to keep you alive so you can reproduce. The notion that it will tell you the “truth” is a straw man

10 hours ago, Sora Tōgo said:

The idea that entanglement might be a form of information exchange aligns with current understandings in quantum mechanics.

No, it does not.

eninn preaching. They did it again, and they are banned, as promised.

8 minutes ago, Mendel191 said:

This is basically why I don't belive in calorie counting or anything that tries to count them, I recently saw a video which investigated how mukbang eaters don't get fat, the short answer is that they don't absorb all the calories that they are eating, now how would any person what % of calories from their food they are actually absorbing in their system...

OTOH if that fraction of calories utilized is roughly constant, then eating more/fewer calories means you are absorbing more/fewer calories. 

7 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

How do you get non-randomness from randomness?

By including some kind of deterministic process, i.e. a filter.

What non-random result are you referring to?

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

The foundation of science is that everything occurs by chance and I am saying that my modest readings seem to tell me differently. Is science being too dogmatic about randomness and chance events? you tell me!

That’s not a foundation of science; there are plenty of non-random, deterministic interactions.

The reading you shared did not say that mutations are not random. It said certain outcomes have a bias, i.e. outcomes do not all have the same probability.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I believe that I have less "legitimacy" than most participants in these scientific forums.

The word would be credibility, which is gained or lost by whether one is posting information and making arguments that are credible.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am sure that this will not satisfy you, but nonetheless, here is one that I think is more than just patching small holes.

• DNA mutations are not random as previously thought
• Findings change our understanding of evolution

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6

"Changes our understanding of evolution" is not the same as a fundamental new principle.

I was under the impression that the susceptibility to mutation not being uniform was known earlier than 2022. Also, the use of "random" is problematic here; things can be random even if the outcomes don't have equal probabilities. Fair dice are random, but you roll 7 more often than other numbers. A normal distribution is not a flat line.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

It would take me a few days to go back and find all of the studies that had the words "unexpected findings" written into study abstracts.

I have no inclination in doing so; Therefore, your right, I have nothing to offer in the way of evidence.

If possible, I would like to come back to the topic of mind-brain as I know a bit more than genetics.

I have enough of a battle on my hands with mind-brain that taking on another challenge is not warranted for now.

I’m not sure why “unexpected findings” would be the evidence I’m asking for. We have unexpected findings all the time in physics without requiring a paradigm shift. What it does is fill in some blanks or force some small adjustments to existing models.

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Genome sequencing promissed many cures to diseases. This did not happen.  What we found since then was a whole lot of things that we did not expect.

 

"With extensive PR, the Genome Project promised rapid cures for many diseases by deciphering the genetic code for less than 2% of the human DNA involved in making proteins in a small number of people. After the genome Project, there were almost no cures found in that code. In the decade after the project, research increasingly showed the fantastic complexity of the regulation of that tiny percentage of our DNA in a region at least tem times larger that the "genes". It, also, showed that many differences in code exist between normal individuals. Millions of regulatory RNA were discovered. The massive use of alternative splicing in the human brain was discovered. It, also, was found that in diseases that are based on a series of mutations, such as cancer. there are many individual variations in the mutations causing the same disease. Many disease have large number of genes that are somehow related and not understood - autism, schizphrenia as examples. Also, it was found that fifty percent of the total DNA is "jumping genes" with critical effects on normal brain function and human brain evolution" - Jon Lieff

“Gene-based disease is more complicated than we thought” is not evidence of a flaw in the established biology. It’s not like anyone found that such diseases aren’t genetic. It looks to me like they found that an assumption - that these diseases were based on some simple genetic code - was in error. In that way, the model was modified.

That you did not answer the question, and just repeated your previous dribble, suggests you have nothing to offer in the way of evidence.

(“this will help cure disease” might just be some boiler-plate PR that‘s included; I saw this quite often in atomic physics, where some discovery or investigation was touted as improving atomic clocks, which rarely happened because the technique was too difficult to implement, or the complexity/benefit ratio was way off. One shouldn’t pay too much attention to the message sent to the masses)

edit: wasn’t the COVID vaccine enabled by genetic sequencing?

On 4/6/2024 at 8:14 PM, Luc Turpin said:

And here is another "crackpot" intervention of mine; this time on molecular and evolutionary biology

"Technical advances have brought an accelerating flood of data, most recently, giving us complete genome sequences and expression patterns from any species. Yet, arguably, no fundamentally new principles have been established in molecular biology, and, in evolutionary biology, despite sophisticated theoretical advances and abundant data, we still grapple with the same questions as a century or more ago."

The point being made is that we easily remember what is right, but seldom acknowledge what is wrong with our well established scientific models.

What did the genome sequences reveal that discredited established biology?

If there are none, why would there be any new principles?

59 minutes ago, icarus2 said:

I am writing my personal opinion.

23 minutes ago, jv1 said:

Light has frequency of 400 THz

That is wave length of 2x10^-14

No, that’s not correct. The speed of light is the product of these two, and it’s not 8 m/s.

400 THz is 750 nm

”time is a point” suggests that it has a single value, which is not the case, but time dilation is an effect on an oscillation frequency. Time is the integral of that frequency (i.e. you count the ticks of a clock to give you the elapsed time)

Any claim you make must be somehow testable. How does one test your conjecture?

If there’s no place to land, how do you deploy your ~12.5m diameter balloon? 

(roughly the same size as a Bell 407, which can lift more weight and is maneuverable)

Yes.

The requirements are specific to the journal. As I recall, the process generally took several months for peer review, revisions and publication. Submission dates might be included in the article so you can check for yourself

e.g. a recent one from Phys. Rev. Lett. Published in April

“Received 7 September 2023  Revised 11 January 2024  Accepted 26 January 2024”

38 minutes ago, harlock said:

For example an airship-hoist can be more useful than a helicopter. 

In what situations?

Clouded over - nothing but a diffuse bright blob, at best, and it got kinda dark for a while. 

Another cargo vessel lost power near a bridge but was being escorted by tugs.

https://abc7chicago.com/verrazzano-narrows-bridge-new-york-apl-qingdao-cargo-ship-loses-power/14634032/#

“The U.S. Coast Guard confirmed the container ship "had experienced a loss of propulsion" Friday night as it traversed a waterway in New York Harbor.”

I’m guessing this happens relatively often but we just weren’t aware because near-misses usually don’t make the news

10 minutes ago, martillo said:

Electrons jump to a lower level of energy and the difference of energy is to the energy of a emitted photon. This is the balance of energy.

Can you provide evidence of quantum transitions at such low energies?

10 minutes ago, martillo said:

Now, In my model there is another fundamental particle involved: neutrinos. In my model there are abundance of both in the universe and they can convert in each other. In absorption a photon converts into a neutrino and in an emission a neutrino  converts into a photon. There are always available neutrinos near the atoms for the emission process take place.

Neutrinos do not interact electromagnetically. You’re building speculation on top of more speculation, and give the appearance of just making it up as you go.