swansont

No, physics and chemistry do not present an orbital as an orbit. Finding an electron in one place is not the same as having a trajectory. That said, you can induce a dipole moment in atoms, which accounts for e.g. the London dispersion attraction and Debye forces

Sure. There are things we don’t understand. The fun of science is figuring them out.

Which in no way contradicts the statement “The mechanisms for evolution are better understood than you think.” but this is a thread about religion, not science, and unanswered questions of science are not evidence of a supreme being.

So you are literally making a god-of-the-gaps argument.

When the pool stops draining, you'll know what the height of the leak is.

And I’m saying details matter. Saying doctors can disagree is not saying they will. You don’t specify how often this happens, or under what circumstances, which might lead someone to conclude it happens more often than it does. Science strives for precision. Being vague is the enemy.

Precisely. They can’t all be most powerful. So in that case “if the God exists, it must be, by definition, the most powerful deity and the most poweful beings” can’t be a true statement

! Moderator Note Threads merged. One per topic, please

What kind of pool is it? When I was growing up the neighbors had an above-ground pool and the older kids would snorkel in it, looking for holes in the liner. Might also work for cracks in an in-ground pool. If the leak is fast enough, dye in the water might show a leak.

Sure there is. You watch, they win. That disproves it. What you can’t do is prove or disprove it by not watching. You’ve mistakenly assumes that making a free throw is random with a 50-50 chance, and it’s not. You don’t know the average until you have the statistics, and this is possibly confounded by the fact that you can improve with practice. You need to be looking at a properly-formulated situation, which you have not done. Can’t really comment on that without an example; this is too vague. One issue with meta-analysis is it’s not difficult to mess it up by using data sets that don’t have identical conditions. This can lead to Simpson’s paradox (though it’s not really a paradox) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox Again, you need specific examples, rather than vague descriptions.

I recall the vending machines in France (~25 years ago) sold diet coke…in 100 ml cans. And there are foods available in the US that are banned in other countries because of preservatives, dyes or trans fats, all thought to impact health. Allowed in the US because of lobbying putting corporate profits first.

And if there's more than one?

It must happen often enough if people are trying to treat it https://sleep-doctor.com/blog/does-your-own-snoring-wake-you-up-from-sleep/ https://www.tmjandsleep.com.au/articles/does-own-snoring-wake-you-up-from-sleep/ Not really, since your position is that it doesn’t happen. If it happens at all, it means you’re aware. Not waking up doesn’t necessarily mean you didn’t hear, since you can ignore sounds that aren’t surprising or threatening.

That’s not obvious to me why, and people can wake themselves because of their snoring. Have you ever been awakened by a noise? I have. How can that happen if you aren’t aware?

Did you mean to say this? Anyway, when I dream, I am aware of myself. And from others’ descriptions of dreams, it’s clear that they are aware of themselves. If you aren’t aware of yourself, perhaps that’s unusual? In any event, it’s not universal.

It’s not clear here if you think 10 AU is how far you need to disperse the material. The wikipedia article says “All scales larger than the Jeans length are unstable to gravitational collapse, whereas smaller scales are stable” which implies spreading the material far apart would be an unstable situation. What’s happening is that by spreading the material out the density drops, increasing the Jeans length, but the size of the cloud is smaller than 10AU, so the thermal energy exceeds the magnitude of the gravitational energy. The Jeans length is where they are equal. (It also seems that the analysis ignores the role of inelastic scattering in the process, which I’m sure astrophysicists have noticed, so it’s a more subtle situation, that is, the Jeans length would not be constant in time for a given mass and size)

Fusion would stop and you’re causing an expansion of the gas. So lower, but the sun doesn't have a uniform temperature. As TheVat implied, it’s not a trivial exercise to determine that.

There’s also policy; we know that pollution causes health problems, and government policy sometimes works to undermine protections that could be put in place (by framing it as regulation inhibiting business) There was a recent story about a community that got rid of fluoride in its drinking water and saw a significant spike in dental procedures within a few years. So policy definitely has an impact on health outcomes.

Oh, is that all you’d have to do? </sarcasm>

You don’t dream, aware of yourself?

“space” isn’t a variable, position is. Its conjugate variable is momentum. Time is paired with energy. You can measure time and position to arbitrary precision at the same time. You’d be limited by instrumentation, not the HUP. I wasn’t addressing the OP, I was addressing your claim about calculus somehow being incompatible with the HUP I never said you couldn’t, I pointed out that you weren’t. If you feel that having an error pointed out demeaning I’m sorry, but being corrected is the price of admission to discussions like this. You don’t get to decide what's understandable by others.

No, it actually defines the uncertainty principle. The fact that calculus uses infinitesimals is irrelevant; there’s nothing that says you can’t measure any particular variable to arbitrary precision. The HUP only restricts you from simultaneously measuring one other, specific variable to arbitrary precision at the same time. The HUP is a ramification of QM and GR is a classical theory. You could just as easily claim that classical mechanics is flawed, and it would be just as much bollocks. We know classical theories break down at certain scales. It defines the limit of their applicability. We don’t have any theories that are universal in what they apply to. We don’t use QM to solve for an object being dropped off of a building, or calculating the trajectory of an orbit. You use the model that’s most useful.

Momentum is p. If you want to discuss physics and be understood you need to speak the language. Otherwise nobody knows what you mean. The larger point is that only a very limited set of variables are constrained in this way. It doesn’t apply to most. And calculus itself isn’t the limitation (but it describes the limitation)

That’s not superposition. The uncertainty principle applies to conjugate variables (x an p are, x and y are not), which are fourier transforms of each other, and you find that transform using…calculus.

! Moderator Note Apparently, none of the feedback has sunk in. No, we’re not doing this again. To be clear: the offer to re-introduce the topic was contingent on fixing the flaws that were pointed out, and presenting evidence that supports the idea. Articles that speak of neuron activity do not support it, so sections 1-8 are just a distraction. The problem is poorly defined, and you haven’t fixed that, nor have you changed the approach of stretching the definition of intelligence so far as to being meaningless. Without rigorous definitions, discussion is pointless.