Leaderboard

I have ASD, but also work hard on communication and social skills, so have managed OK in life. Understanding intention and emotion through nonverbal ques and innuendo is always a challenge, and I do tend to take people at the literal interpretation of their word when it's often not the actual intention. On this forum, the regular users also tend to be very literal in their communication style and I tend to do well. I also managed to develop a scientific communication style that polarizes - people either love or hate my classes and my publications. I tend to put a lot of effort into the precision of my language and interpret others through that lens, so often I am at odds unintentionally (ok, sometimes intentionally) with people who are more expressive and figurative in their communication style.

I am autistic indeed, and in the very fortunate position that my own personal autistic profile is such that for me the advantages of being on the spectrum far outweigh the challenges (which exist, but may not be obvious here). Unfortunately this is not true for many other - perhaps even the majority of - autistic people, a large proportion of whom suffer significantly from their autistic traits and common comorbidities, and above all from the failure of the wider neurotypical world to understand, respect, accept and accommodate these traits. Ultimately whether or not the “D” belongs in there is very much a matter of personal circumstance and experience - for me personally, I do not consider my autism to be a “disorder” in any way, and wouldn’t choose to change it even if given the opportunity; however, other autistic people may think about their own situation very differently, and this absolutely needs to be respected too. Everything considered, I am not a very “typical” representative of the autistic community. And for those of you who aren’t aware - English is also not my native language; my real-world vocation has nothing to do with science; and I am not university-educated. The foundations of physics are simply a matter of personal interest to me, so it’s all self-taught. And rest assured that if I’m among real experts on these subjects matters (e.g. among some of the regulars over on PhysicsForums), I’m also left feeling ignorant and dumb Which is why I’m mostly just a silent reader there. But for me this is rarely a negative experience, since I consider ignorance to be an opportunity to acquire new understanding, which is never a bad thing. PS. To give perhaps a better insight into the subject matter of this thread - when I respond to posts, my entire focus is always 100% on understanding better how the world works. That means when I see a statement that doesn’t gel very well with the current scientific consensus on the matter at hand, I’ll simply say so - social considerations never come into it for me at all. I don’t set out to intentionally hurt or belittle people, but neither do I go out of my way to mollycoddle others’ feelings (unless they are obviously vulnerable in some way). The social aspect just simply isn’t on my radar at all. A verbal or mathematical statement is either a good description of some aspect of the world, or it isn’t - that’s all there is to it for me. This is also how I roll in the real world - I am very focused on concepts, insights, and values, and have little to no interest in social or cultural conventions. That get’s me in trouble sometimes, since most other people appear to be reifying socio-cultural conventions into some sort of universal truths or standards. I’m just not everyone’s cup of tea I guess

This appears to be a thread designed to "get under peoples skin". In other words you seem to be trolling, what is the point of doing that?

What does the pea have to contain? All the electronics and the energy source? Really small circuits are certainly possible. Commercially-available ones a little larger than your parameters can be found, and could be made smaller. One limiting factor would be if you have a power requirement

Yes, why not ? The smallest microwave wavelenght is 1mm so a quarter wave antenna is only 0.25mm. Many insects have antenna that are in the 0.25 to 5mm length range and some are known to respond strongly to microwave radiation. Equally artificial antenna of this size can easily be constructed.

I wish I could give plus one for each line of this. Just so funny.

Remember that engineers and physicists employ a double negative on the work term by a change of both sign and sense. It still works, but we have to remember the correct sign convention in all applications where the work term arises. Someone with an odd turn of mind could paraphrase the 'unchemist' version as delta U = heat - unwork. In principle one could apply this double negative process to all three terms and get delta Cold = cool + unwork. It's not really unphysical, simply perverse. Just as absolute U cannot be -ve, absolute Cold could never be +ve. It could work in principle but it would only serve to add confusion to the world. Which I'm guessing is the OPs intent.

My understanding is that these are just abstract mathematical functions. If you are in state X and an instruction puts you into state Y, that's a function, called the state transition function. They're not polynomials or exponentials or any familiar type of function. They're functions in the formal sense. Input state in, output state out. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite-state_machine, see the section marked Mathematical Model.

Fictionalism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/

I haven't seen that video but I have read of that report, it was pretty much poo pooed because it happened in a poor superstitious part of Brazil... evidently even UFOs can be racist. I thought the report was interesting, I'll try and watch it soon. Brazil and other parts of South America have long been known as hot spots of UFO activity but were pretty much ignored by mainstream media but lots of accounts have made it to UFO journals and other sources.

Yes, playing mind games is not done much here. We generally strive for clarity, I think, and we don't need that crap.

I think this would depend. In principle both EM radiation and G radiation should propagate along the same geodesics, so for “ordinary” objects like stars etc and “ordinary” G waves the deflection angle should be nearly the same since any non-linear effects are negligible. However, if the wave length of the G radiation becomes very large, and/or the background field is very strong, I would imagine there might be situations were such effects cannot be neglected, and the deflection angles differ. I’m not sure though. This may be relevant: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.01710

@Moontanman Did you get a chance to watch James Fox's latest documentary? Since you enjoyed Phenomenon, you might like this one also: Moment of Contact (2022). It investigates a case in Varginha, Brazil that happened in 1996, where a tic-tac shaped UFO was shot down (or crashed) on the outskirts of the city, and two living bipedal creatures of an unidentifiable species were sighted by the residents of Varginha hours later. Attached a clip from youtube where one of the witnesses, who was in the Brazilian army at the time, shares his story.

OK Both, I believe. Misner, Thorne and Wheeler include description and references in their chapter on gravity waves. But I would say my most important point concerned was the sheer size of objects involved, seeing as you seem to be interested in what possibilities there are for manipulating gravity. You also need to be careful to distinguish between working in space and time separately v spacetime. A wave equation is an eqaution connecting space and time. The ordinary (linear) wave eqaution allows separation of these two variables, by virtues of the linearity. Gravity waves occur in spacetime, but as I said before linear ( ie linearised versions), so the model is essentially non linear. This arises because the solutions to the wave equation, being a partial differential equation, contain arbitrary functions, and it is usual to choose the simplest. But a gravity wave equation will have additional complicated (even complex) relativistic conditions that must also be met. Considering your antenna: Antennas are passive devices (and only thre dimensional at that), which means that they do not generate the required wave, that has to be done by somethng else, as does any modulating signal. So you would still need all the paraphanalia already under discussion. Also since the waves are actually 4D, what do the 'lobes' of such an antenna look like in 4D ? Directional antennas are not impossible in theory because there is already a phenomenon called gravitational lensing (which again involves the big guns) under observation.

Thanks for the reply. I think your 'halt' is an excellent way to show what I think of but I lack the mathematic knowledge to express, +1. My reasoning: The outcome when step-by-step instructions is running in a CPU could as far as I know be expressed mathematically using boolean algebra and circuit logics. This includes the 'Null' or 'NOP'* instruction. But an instruction that requires an external interrupt does not necessary have any upper limit for how long it takes for the interrupt to occur. When the time is unbounded a "step" seems different from a mathematical perspective. I think my question is related to this statement: I'm curious what kind of mathematical functions are required and if/how that depends on the types of instructions and level of abstraction (CPU, Machine code, higher level) and if these functions are what OP described. *) No operation

I wonder if it matters if it's intentional or malicious. A stoic line would be that one can only control their responses, or that one can stifle any unreasonable emotional reaction, if there is self-mastery. Nonetheless, if something "gets your goat" I think it helps you see yourself--why or how am I identified with this point of contention that leads to negative emotion or reaction? I agree with a line of argument that says the truth hurts. That dis-confirming information is interpreted by the brain as physical injury. I don't know how scientifically founded that is, but I do think there are studies on cognitive biases in political opinion where people presented with information dis-confirmatory to their belief have pain centers light up. I also think the issue of whether you're thinking with your adipose or your blood is at play. I'm not so sure we can really control what impressions we make on others. Being able to be externally considerate always and internally considerate never is an equation for happiness. Being able to control the impressions we make on others would be quite a skill... But is there a need for it? Perhaps stepping on people's corns can create a friction, create some difficulty to make a change that wouldn't be possible another way. It only make sense and is reasonable I think to be respectful here, I think we'd hope we understand each other and are working on things together. Yet if you think it's necessary to correct with dis-confirming information, it's going to bring the pain, and oftentimes I think it's done with a flair or presentation that might be taken personally, or as an insult, when in reality it's done in good humor (at least for the rest of the readers).

One thing I think is important to bear in mind, is that the Relgions are not just one simple invention. Most are doctrines that have been studied, pored over and shaped by some very clever, even brilliant people, with the intention of giving them maximum appeal. What people found hard to swallow has been very quickly discarded, and that which people are attracted to has been copied and adopted from thousands of other tales. So what we have now is as appealing as a chocolate cake, filled with sweet cream, drizzled in honey and topped with chopped wallnuts. It's designed for maximum appeal.

Hey Alkonoklazt, I am concerned that you are assuming things to be constant when we don't actually know what many things you referenced are in truth, such as the human consciousness. Any entity that can think and learn from its mistakes could very well be able to develop a reality of consciousness, at least in the way that we are. Human DNA has many similarities to a programming language. Our cells seem to be mindless and don't do anything until they receive instruction from connected and folded stands of proteins in specific combinations. Our own emotions and feelings seem to be a mix of drugs, electricity, and programming. That being said I enjoyed reading your post.

Is “not playing golf” learned? Is “not collecting stamps” learned? Is “not playing the guitar” learned? Is “not believing in Zeus” learned? If not, then why would “not believing in the current flavor-of-the-day god(s) that happen to be popular” be learned? Autodidact So, against religion, not just secular? It’s not hard to understand why 😲

They are not all the same. I have been comfortable with some deeply religious people, including a couple of Catholic priests, and acutely uncomfortable with many whose religious conviction was outspoken, and yet unconvincing. In both cases, I'm talking about Christians and my superficial observation is that the more sincere the faith, the more lightly they wear it and the less they need to demonstrate it. Most of my life, people's religion was not an issue. In the US, however, it has become increasingly political over the last four decades. What happens in the US, and what is done elsewhere by the US, affects the whole world. All beliefs are learned. Nobody is born with a head full of abstract ideas - only needs and sensations, which later form into yearnings and thoughts. The forming is done by the caregivers and larger environment. For example, a baby whose cradle is in the bedroom of a devout Catholic couple, develops its colour vision on a madonna and a Jesus with open heart and spiky halo; An Indian baby may, at the same time, be learning to focus on a grinning Buddha with a flower garland around its neck; in a secular western house, the baby's first impressions would be of flying fishies and bunnies. Images, as well as language, are imprinted on impressionable minds, so that it may very well seem as if they always had these beliefs. The idea of atheism depends on there being theism to reject or oppose. It doesn't have top be learned - it has to be formulated as a response to something about religion - its implausibility, its internal contradictions, its demands of the faithful, its moral shortcomings, the way its advocates behave - any combination of those factors. When someone brought up in a religious home comes to doubt the belief they've been taught, it takes time to figure what they're doubting and why. They rarely go directly from faith to atheism; there are many stages and soul-searchings to navigate. In that process, people usually consult critiques of their own religion, and apologetics for it, and thus learn the language of unbelief. Only then, having assessed their final response, do they call themselves atheist.

Sure, accepted. I am really glad that you have found it and thank you, @Lorentz Jr and @md65536.

I really don't know the answer to this but I was thinking that you need to distinguish between a 'do nothing' instruction and a halt instruction which is not the same thing. I would interpret a do nothing instruction as equivalent to the zero function in your terms, which surely would make it the same as Ghideon's wait instruction.

Yep. The fallacy of binary thinking. Ockham's razor is your friend when assessing any theories that involve advanced technology and centuries or millennia-long voyages culminating in weird planetary voyeurism (we're not going to contact, we'll just watch for decades as we confound the locals with bizarre aerial stunts because, really, we have nothing better to do!). Hitchen's razor is also a friend, when over 70 years of combing over reports yields not one shred of solid evidence for the ET origin hypothesis. I find it telling that, a few months after a movie was released in which an alien craft descends on Washington DC (The Day the Earth Stood Still), the famous DC UFO sightings occurred.

Especially talk of infinities are mental constructs with no physical proof that they exist. Cantor proves the Reals are uncountable by constructing an infinite list of reals paired to a natural number. Such a list can be constructed conceptually in mind, but it cannot be physically produced to check that it exits. This is why I say mathematics is a Fairy Tale.