swansont

ST:TNG Darmok (S5E2)

That’s like going to a foreign country and refusing to speak their language. And “reasoned ontology” does not dictate physics. Science has to be compared to experiment/observation, so it must make testable predictions. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. If it can’t be compared, even in principle, it’s not science.

There is no t<0 physics. “alpha physics” is also, AFAICT, not a thing, but that could be because you’re not using standard terminology (so it is, quite literally, gibberish, though that does not mean it is meaningless) You have to communicate more clearly. Being supporting does not mean being credulous.

Moderator NoteWe keep running into this same issue. You need to cite the source of the claims you post, so that it can be checked for context and credibility

Being met with skepticism is not any indication that your material has validity. “But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” ―Carl Sagan,

“some of the 12,000 images are nearly identical to each other or even the same file just in a different size. Some aren’t even that impressive; blurry or overexposed. But there are also some unseen gems in there. PetaPixel has picked out some of the best ones.” https://petapixel.com/2026/05/04/nasa-releases-thousands-of-unseen-artemis-ii-photos/

It’s very apparent that what you're discussing is philosophy, so I’m not sure why you expect engagement from physicists

One issue with LLMs, though, is that the training data includes untrustworthy material, and the algorithm can’t filter it out.

What we consider speculation is more than this, which is a fishing expedition, a guess. We expect you to have worked out the connection, rather than muse that there might be one.

It’s not really effort, though. How is one to know if you have enough expertise to ask the right question? If you do you’ll recognize a wrong or incomplete answer, but then the odds are you didn’t need to ask in the first place. So most of the time if you have to ask, you don’t have the expertise to evaluate the veracity of the answer that is given.

It can also be a rhetorical admonishment of certain inappropriate behavior. We use a lot of figures of speech that are not to be taken literally.

If you have to have enough expertise to phrase the question in a way that gets you an acceptably correct answer, that’s an admission that it’s not a tool for the masses, as they lack said expertise. It’s a description of a Dunning-Kruger machine.

“the new power becomes even worse than the previous one” That might just be the arc of any civilization/culture, as the power becomes entrenched, because power corrupts. The structure rots and eventually collapses, either because of internal upheaval and/or external pressure. The only question is how long it takes.

What do you mean by spoiler? Um, “people who controlled Biden”? It’s unsubstantiated claims like this that lead people to conclude you’re a troll and a propagandist. You’ve done little to dissuade that notion. DeSantis never ran against Biden in any election, so I’m not sure where this comes from. I’m not sure what insight you think it provides.

Moderator NoteFrom rule 2.13 (emphasis added) 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.

Some day they’ll invent a computer that can do math. It just hasn’t been something anyone’s tried before.

I don’t think any of the criticism here requires knowing much about Russia.

Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. — Lord Acton

Houses of the Holy (my ringtone, and confusingly, not on the album Houses of the Holy)

As sethoflagos says, there’s not much to be gained here. you’d need a check valve, or have the inlet primed, to make sure the air escaped the right way, and since the air is going to gather near the exit, it’s liable to point nose down and any propulsion would make it just sink slightly faster Any engineering to mitigate that probably isn’t worth the effort.

Absolutely. That’s part of the joke here.

“Researchers in the UK studied how European herring gulls (Larus argentatus) in the city reacted to various types of takeout boxes. The gulls were substantially less likely to approach or peck at boxes that had googly eyes attached to them, they found. Though not every bird was deterred, the simple design strategy could help ease human-gull conflict” https://gizmodo.com/this-ridiculously-simple-trick-might-stop-gulls-from-nabbing-your-lunch-2000742276 You’d think that lunch containers might have evolved this trait on their own, so it must not confer a reproductive advantage…

There are limitations on size for insects, arachnids and arthropods that aren’t tied to gravity (e.g. respiration). One that is is the problem of scaling up exoskeletons, but having more legs would tend to mitigate that. Tetrapods adapting to land and filling up niches has to be considered as well. A heavy organism owing to its exoskeleton, supported by a lot of legs probably can’t move quickly and needs a lot of food, so it’s not going to compete well with anything that’s faster and more efficient.

HES?

“The NIST team replicated the original BIPM experiment, building a torsion balance with eight metal cylinders: four on a rotating carousel and four smaller masses inside the carousel, sitting on a suspended disk held by a thin ribbon of copper-beryllium. The torsion balance and ribbon would twist when the outer masses attracted the inner ones, and physicists measured Big G by tracking the cylinder’s rotation and the resulting gravitational torque. They also performed a second set of measurements by applying a voltage to electrodes beside the inner masses. This twisted the wire in the opposite direction to the gravitational torque, and the voltage magnitude provided another estimate of Big G. The NIST scientists also added an extra twist: They ran two versions of the experiment, one with copper masses and one with sapphire masses, achieving nearly identical values for both. This ruled out the possibility that the specific materials used were affecting the measurements“ https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/04/we-still-dont-have-a-more-precise-value-for-big-g/ Interesting that they did this with both copper and sapphire but I thought that the weak equivalence principle had been confirmed at higher precision than this, so what would be the point? (Guess I gotta go read the actual paper) (edit: quick scan suggests the different materials were used for other reasons - EM properties and mass amount and uniformity)