swansont

I know the T dropdown gives us options to increase or decrease, but if I copy-paste something in a big font, like a headline, clicking “100% (default)” does nothing. Somehow, that’s the new default size. Young tourists deported from US after not planning their trip well enough I can only drop that to 80% size Young tourists deported from US after not planning their trip well enoughIf I copy-paste again, it still knows that’s 80%. The only way to get it normal is to paste it where I’ve already typed, so it uses the existing setting Young tourists deported from US after not planning their trip well enough Does anyone know a simpler way? (edit: and now 80% is the new default, so “default size” basically means nothing)

We have to go with the system the new host provides. There are no more modnote boxes, because they were custom code and that’s not supported by this version.

Ambiguous statements can be interpreted multiple ways. That’s something that religion leverages. Whatever you want the answer to be, is the answer you use.

I’m pretty sure the concept of a year with seasons dates back quite a way. So, not quite that difficult to find a usable way. Sun dials date back at least ~3500 years “Arc length is the distance between two points along a section of a curve.” “Length is the distance” is self-referential. And if you do it with coordinates and positions, now you have to define those without being self-referential. You can’t define things in terms of other things without eventually looping back. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a math theorem that shows this. If I have 10 elements in my lexicon, I can define the first in terms of 9 other options, but the second leaves me 8 options, and so on. 10 elements but only 9 unique definitions.

Maybe it’s concentration? 400+ ppm is around 1 mg/L and the most you can dissolve in water is around 1g/L (at STP) and we’re not at that maximum.

Instructions to build a clock doesn’t define time. “take a mass and suspend it from a string” is not a definition of time, but you didn’t seem to have a problem with that “definition” “defining” time is an issue of metaphysics - telling people what time “is”. Physics is interested in how it behaves - the measurement. Define length without any self-reference.

I’d ask you the same thing. You certainly aren’t familiar with any physics beyond some high-school stuff. Some of the non-real items are blatantly labeled as such, like virtual particles. Is an electron hole an actual object?

Yes, but that was in the context of official government communication, where the inclusion of an “outsider” was an error. This is so much worse, because there is no circumstance where someone without a clearance and need-to-know (wife, brother, lawyer) should be included, and never on a personal device. The earlier report should have gotten him fired, and this makes that decision look even more horrible.

That’s a requirement from science itself, not part of any specific theory. A theory of everything would only explain things explainable and predictable by science. IOW, a theory of everything is not everything.

The OP asked a question, and responses should try to answer that question, and attempt to clear up any misconceptions, with mainstream science. It’s not an invitation to introduce non-mainstream discussion. Even now, after the topic has been split, we expect mainstream science. Non-mainstream science can only take place in their own thread in the speculations section I have been involved in building ~10 atomic clocks, and at no time did the definition of the second enter into the process. The definition of the second has changed since the fist atomic clocks were built - a fact you continue to ignore - so they could not have depended on it. I disagree. We do that all the time with definitions. How can you not, for a finite set of words that only reference each other? Even if it takes multiple steps, you end up in a circle.

Wow, it’s even worse. “Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared detailed plans about a military operation against the Houthis in Yemen on a second Signal group chat, this one on his personal phone and including his wife, lawyer and brother, three people familiar with the chat told CNN.” https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/20/politics/hegseth-second-signal-chat-military-plans/index.html

No, I don’t think that’s what anyone means by a theory of everything. I can’t think of any theories that require “an algorithm for legitimate descriptive language of models” Can you point to such a theory, or to anyone who makes this claim?

Any regular oscillation, sure. And? “the neutrino oscillation is an active research topic that is not yet fully understood. as of now, assuming the neutrino having a mass is just as much speculation given our current experimental results. There are even some conflicting data which are partially at odds with invariant nature, though there may still be other explanations. there is a reason why Lorentz violation is considered, including experiments that could test for it.” The passage I was objecting to was about perceiving different flows of time. I should have edited the quote further, but then again, I was hoping you could discern mainstream physics from non-mainstream

I’m not sure what you mean by this, or even just reality, but physics doesn’t claim to be describing reality, and math even less so. Physics describes how things behave, and admits to having lots of things that aren’t real. There’s plenty of valid math that works but doesn’t describe the behavior of things around us. Who told you it was supposed to?

What do you think is the “definition” of time? (in a physics sense) Is it something other that “that which is measured by a clock”? A massless neutrino might cause problems for neutrino models, but timekeeping doesn’t depend on them. Moderator NotePlease keep speculations in its own thread in the speculations section, rather than hijacking someone else’s thread with that discussion.

That’s an understatement. Moderator NoteWe require much more rigor than this. This is not sci-fi story time. Some technical critique: your equation is obviously bogus just from unit analysis. If you’re going to invoke element 115 you should make an attempt to justify this. But I don’t see that there’s anything to build on here to try and salvage a scientific discussion. All chaff, and no wheat.

True, but their discoveries would likely still happen, though perhaps later. Scientific work is usually happening among multiple people. People other than Einstein were working on relativity, for example.

Any inertial observer can decide they are at rest. Nothing about physics changes with your choice of inertial reference frame. So, if you want to be at rest, you’re at rest. (approximately, since we’re actually accelerating, and that’s not relative. But it’s small)

Mrs. Tilly likes pollo but not chicken

Unfortunately they don’t give any numbers. How much does the pH and CO2 concentration drop? They suggest it’s significant if they purport to be worried about the pH change having an effect on ocean life, but how can a small-scale project do that? And how much does that affect the absorption rate? That’s the key metric.

Threads merged. Please take a moment to review what was discussed. Feelings of deja vu might occur

Lots of spacetimes are mathematically possible, but do not reflect the spacetime we are in (e.g. Galilean another one, which ends up having unphysical implications) In this case you have to explain how t1 and t2 manifest themselves; what does it mean to have three time coordinates? Are they orthogonal, like spatial coordinates, and what does that mean?

Another aspect is that a static electric or magnetic field does not exist on its own. You need to consider the source of the field, which will have mass, and other properties, like charge.

Running it through a computation model suggests math, not a chat. And quotation marks are still expected. And it can only tell you if the math checks out, not whether it’s valid science. See rule 2.13 “you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made”

Can you say what the energy of the universe is? It could be zero.