swansont

I will note that nothing has been removed. Your posts have all been gathered into one thread, since there’s no reason to start multiple threads on the same topic, and it was placed in speculations, which is where it belongs, according to our protocols. Fe was used an actual experiment that matched a mass increase with an excitation energy, though I misremembered which isotope. It was Fe-65. The mass difference was measured in a Penning trap. I was not referring to Fe https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.132501 Shouldn’t the mass decrease if it’s higher in a nuclear potential, according to your hypothesis? Potentially yes, see above. The existence of an equation does not mean that it was derived from valid physics principles. The fact that you and I are posting means this is “published” so I don’t know what your complaint is Now that you’ve posted a more extensive work, let’s look at e-e+ annihilation. Your description very confusing, but you get two 511 keV photons out of it, and this is purely an electromagnetic interaction. No strong interaction, and it follows E=mc^2, which is in disagreement with your hypothesis.

We’ve locked the door behind Frank Martin DiMeglio

Using the word in its definition doesn’t really clarify much. What about intent to survive would circumvent natural selection?

What specifically do you mean by intention?

The amount spent on research also has to be placed in the context of a nation’s economy, as CharonY pointed out some time ago, and the available infrastructure. The US GDP is 10x that of the UK, so spending a lot more shouldn’t be surprising. And if the company doing the research is in the US, then the money gets spent in the US. Other countries still send people to the US to get educated, so one might think the infrastructure for academic research might be better. Spending money is moot if there’s nobody/no facilities to do the research.

Put another way: The theory of evolution is more subtle and complicated than any Cliff’s-notes-five-paragraph summary you might read, and, like any science topic, is more subtle and complicated than what you learn in high-school.

Any science to post? Or is this just wand-wavy shouting?

How is it that the mass defects of nuclei match with E=mc^2. That an isomer of Fe (I think it’s Fe-57) has the expected mass increase in the excited state, with respect to the photon energy? Any actual experimental evidence to back this up? Any theoretical basis for it? (i.e. can you derive these equations?)

No, it must be posted here. Not links, not attachments, and not word documents. See rule 2.7 https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/

! Moderator Note Merged with previous thread covering same subject As we had previously discussed, it’s probably strongly influenced by that and the rest of for-profit healthcare

Right, because it’s physics, not philosophy of physics. Not me. I’m a physicist, not a philosopher

! Moderator Note We expect information for discussion to be posted here, not via links. What evidence do you have to support this hypothesis? Is there any theoretical basis for this?

You previously presented mimicking as a behavior. How does one know if this is genetic? The question was about direction. Influencing survival is just natural selection. Direction implies you are developing a trait that is anticipating that the trait will be useful under different, not current, conditions.

The statistical argument is a shell game. It’s an argument used to justify a position that had already been reached. When it’s refuted, the proponent Gish-gallops to the next argument. Lack of/poor information isn’t the barrier. It’s fine to put better information out there, but it’s unlikely to change minds.

No equations and no problem solving means you aren’t doing physics. You can’t make any specific (i.e. quantitative) predictions. You’re making an outline of it.

! Moderator Note There’s no science here, so this doesn't rise to the level required for speculations

“The house has already passed this bill, but it was held up by Rand Paul in the Senate for months.”

So, learning, as far as I see it. Developing some amount of understanding. So, not actually learning. But isn’t imitation just mimicry? You called it intentional learning. How does one tell the difference? And how does any of this mean that evolution has a direction (meaning that you get an outcome that’s not governed by the current environment)?

You specifically pointed to learning, in more than one place. What differentiates intentional learning from unintentional learning?

Is extraordinary the author’s characterization or yours? In what way are these extraordinary? We know that ingesting small, non-lethal, amounts of poison makes you resistant to it (mithridatism) and have known that for more than 2000 years, so it’s hardly surprising that similar effects happen in the wild. We know animals have intelligence and some use tools. What’s the evidence that this is intentional? Did an orca decide one day that they were going to figure out a way to dislodge seals? Or did they just notice that it happened, and learn from it? You just started out agreeing that the gene pool is not controlled, but now we have the switch, like this is three-card monte, and (of course) the agenda that you keep claiming you don’t have. Cherry-picking results and trying to shape data to force it to support a conclusion is not science.

CR passed the house with the modifications Musk wanted, but without the debt ceiling increase Trump wanted. Happy happy fun fun!

! Moderator Note Yes. Feel free to start new threads to ask questions. please read the rules and follow them

Other countries are less enthralled and entangled with the US’s unholy conglomeration of billionaires and its embracing oligarchy and authoritarian rule, and might do something about it. (South Korea’s impeachment proceedings, for example

That’s good…for the author. But I’m not concerned about their ability to argue about evolution, or science in general. My objection is about what you fail to do. Your claims of evidence often boil down to “this person said so” and that’s not evidence. That author may have referenced evidence in their work, but you are expected to present evidence here, so that we can all access it and be included in the discussion. You were asked several times to do this and declined. A couple of us picked an example for you, and then showed how the Mojave desert woodrat‘s adaptation isn’t contrary to the theory of evolution (only to your simplistic/outdated caricature of it) Again, control over your fate is not control over the process. You can do things that improved your survivability (some control over your fate) that are in no way controlling how your population evolves.

Saw this posted on social media James 5 NIV 1 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you.2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.[a] 6 You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you. Sounds like an endorsement to me! </s>