swansont

I would imagine aerosols falling to the surface (which would include the ocean) and then accumulating in the ocean would be measured in years, which is negligible in this scenario. So there should be a layer that has a spike in Be-10 from any short-duration event. If it’s forming a layer on land and later eroded, that’s going to be spread out in time with much lower Be contributions. And the rate need not be continuous if you’re measuring the Be-10/B-10 ratio to get the date.

A perturbation in the electromagnetic field, moving at c, is one way to look at them. Being quantum particles, classical descriptions don’t always cover all of the behavior. (angular momentum being one thing that might not be a property that is obvious from the above description)

The photon takes certain path (null geodesic) because it is massless and travels at c. Massive particles follow different geodesics. But it’s all because of the curvature.

No but they didn’t say it wasn’t. It also suggests maybe it didn’t work for shorter time periods. It’s a bit ambiguous and imprecise, like the mass comment. They could have stated what the actual limit is (like how radiocarbon is limited to 50k-60k years)

“Something extraordinary happened on Earth around 10 million years ago, and whatever it was, it left behind a “signature” of radioactive beryllium-10. This finding, which is based on studies of rocks located deep beneath the ocean, could be evidence for a previously-unknown cosmic event or major changes in ocean circulation. With further study, the newly-discovered beryllium anomaly could also become an independent time marker for the geological record.” https://physicsworld.com/a/radioactive-anomaly-appears-in-the-deep-ocean/ A couple of nits, though “Because beryllium-10 has a half-life of 1.4 million years, it is possible to use its abundance to pin down the dates of geological samples that are more than 10 million years old.” 10 million would be ~7 half-lives. Much longer than that would be increasingly tough to pin down since you are decreasing signal/noise. So while you could get results a bit beyond 10 mya, it’s not good for arbitrarily long ages. It also says B-10and Be-10 have the same mass, but they differ slightly which is my their mass spectrometer could distinguish them.

That’s not what this thread is about. Why do you expect to? MW is an interpretation; it’s not testable. Start a thread on the topic. This one is about the alleged consciousness of quantum fields I’m not sure that’s the case

No, each world has one universal wave function. If multiple worlds had the same wave function they would be in identical states. That’s contrary to the notion of the many-worlds premise. They don’t interact. That’s not really how wave functions work. A link is not the same as saying QM fields are conscious

By not quoting someone, you are addressing everyone, and it’s OT. We’re discussing what governments want, not individuals

Or he just wants to be a dictator, and prefers the company of them

Yes. I don’t see how this supports the notion that diplomacy will work if war is eliminated as an option. If war spreads it’s likely because of Putin attacking someone else. Europe (et al.) seems content to send support but not troops. He might be emboldened by Trump cutting off aid, and not supporting NATO but does he think he’s strong enough to take on everyone else in NATO if he attacks member state?

! Moderator Note There is no “we” here One person started this thread, and they provided a definition. Don’t hijack that discussion.

Possibly? Either you have evidence to rebut a claim, or you don’t. And Trump’s idea of fake news is facts he doesn’t like, so that’s really not something to point to.

! Moderator Note The definition being used in this thread (as posted by the thread originator) “my new definition of consciousness: a being that can act according to the rules it sets and can behave in accordance to the awareness it devolves for itself.”

So you need a threat of war, which violates the dichotomy that was presented.

! Moderator Note And this is one of the reasons we have a rule (2.13) prohibiting the use of chatbots as a basis for discussion. You might be basing your proposal on a hallucination. It’s not up to others to sort through it and figure out what’s right and what’s crap. It requires this to be moved to speculations Posting a wall-of-text is also bad form

Does diplomacy work with sociopaths? If diplomacy is so powerful, why didn’t Putin use it? Diplomacy is give-and-take, but the pattern with Putin, Trump, et al. seems to be “Give me what I want, or else”

Trump has been trying to shake down Ukraine, and this was not the first time. It’s ludicrous to think there was anything Zelenskyy could do that would garner Trump’s support, since Trump is a Russian stooge.

Poland has “Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk voiced supported (sic) for Ukraine following the dispute between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House on Feb. 28.” https://kyivindependent.com/polish-pm-tusk-voices-support-for-ukraine-amid-zelensky-trump-clash/

I don’t know; I didn’t use that phrase (except to quote it), Ant Sinclair did. You should ask them. “Quantum” didn’t show up until a comment by MigL, and quantum consciousness followed after (>25 posts in), so I don’t think there’s a legit argument to be made that it was part of the OP. And I’m pretty sure that both quantum fields and consciousness are a matter of scientific discussion, and also that you’ve presented a false dichotomy here. Is your little tantrum over yet?

! Moderator Note Those are statements of a factual nature, which need to be supported before this continues “rising rapidly” is vague; it’s a number that can be quantified. Details matter.

We’re not in the original thread, are we? It was split because of the discussion of different topics. I mentioned human as a contrast to tree consciousness that you brought up, and why we need a definition.

In addition to the requested agenda, please define “woke” Stated without evidence (which should happen in a different thread) Both sides fallacy, strawman, and also, no evidence. (also arguably off-topic)

It’s IT if how they do it is under discussion. But it’s not.

True. You could substitute a handful of other animals, but since this is a discussion involving humans, it reduces a variable. (we know we are self-aware and can make decisions, for example)

You can look at it solely from electrostatics and relativity, as Markus has detailed.