Leaderboard

You made this statement. Everything. Your linked article makes no such assertion, and suggests only that genes play a role. That's quite a different thing. Perhaps then you should double-check. Ignoring objections to absolute statements you make is not good science, especially when you are clearly not trained in this field and can't seem to understand how profoundly erroneous is "everything is determined by genetics."

You ask, or make the most inane statements. Realize that in Physics we deal with models. And if the 'reality' of the situation can best be represented bysomething accelerating, or a made-up particle which might not really exist, or any number of other assumptions which are unsupported, we explore them, and see if they lead to consequences we can observe and measure.

You are right. There is no actual time dilation or length contraction for anything. They are only perceptions/observations. This might cause a stir here, but it's true.

Your use of the word "twins" is meaningless. 😄 Apparently there's an infinite number of trolls on the internet. 🙄

Why is that a hope? Still don't see why anyone's personal tastes, especially about what happens in other people's sex lives, have to be discarded. Why aren't you also hoping for the discard of other visceral disgusts and sharing them in other threads? Haven't heard a peep from you on visceral disgust for SMBD, and yet there's plenty of that disgust out there. No there aren't.

Why don't y'all shut yer mouth? Why the need to express ones distaste in the public sphere? The people have spoken at the ballot box - and they say it's ok. I never thought of my grandad on top of grandma. Just leave them to it.

You posted a link that refers to a theory paper. Lots of theory explorations go nowhere. Has the been shown to be valid? Has there been experimental confirmation?

Using F = ma (Newton's second law) for the mass dmgas of exhaust gasses, we have the internal force of the rocket acting on the gas: Fint = dmgas (-ve/dt) = -ve dmgas/dt And the action-reaction rule (Newton's third law) says the exhaust gasses exert an equal and opposite force on the rocket. Defining Fext as any external force that might be acting on the rocket, F = ma for the rocket is Ftot = Fext + Fint = Fext + ve dmgas/dt = mrocket a = mrocket dv/dt Defining the final (backwards) speed of the exhaust gasses vx = ve - v, and remembering dmrocket = -dmgas, Fext = -ve dmgas/dt + mrocket dv/dt = -(v + vx) dmgas/dt + mrocket dv/dt = v dmrocket/dt + mrocket dv/dt - vx dmgas/dt Fext = d(mrocketv)/dt + (-vx) dmgas/dt = dprocket/dt + dpgas/dt = dp/dt You can see there are two contributions to dp/dt: The change in mv of the rocket, plus however much (forward) momentum is carried away by the exhaust gasses.

IOW, you assert current physics is wrong, but can’t show it to be wrong, or present the physics that is “correct” That’s science fiction, or possibly magic, not science. It’s not a serious argument.

Right. Because that’s not how they derived the equation. Since dp/dt is zero (there is no net force) it means momentum is conserved. They solve the problem by applying that principle. Other way around

It's actually needed if what you mean is to argue that 'physics is in trouble.' You see, for some physical systems the concepts of force, or acceleration for that matter, or even position, are ambiguous or cannot be defined at all. It's also possible for them to have a surprising and totally non-intuitive definition that nevertheless makes mathematical sense. Take the case of a particle in a constant magnetic field. These systems are better treated in terms of a Lagrangian. And when you do that, lo and behold, the momentum of the system is not what you would expect, and includes the vector potential, turning out to be mv-qA, instead of just mv. In the case that you guys are discussing, it's because the definition of 'the system' is what's ambiguous. The rocket is losing fuel by the second, so part of 'the system' is going away. What do you do? You drop the definition that happens to be useless for this particular case --of F=ma--, and stick to the more secure, more general one of F=dp/dt, as knowledgeable members are telling you. Then you have two terms mdv/dt, and vdm/dt. The same equation that's been applied for decades to investigate how rockets move.

Actually, no. He's a well-known hackler of serious scientists in public talks. I know enough about him to know he's a crackpot magnet. He claims that all of physics since Planck is wrong --I was patient enough to watch one of his videos or two. That's some time down the drain I'm not getting back. He certainly doesn't understand the ideas behind renormalisation. I'm not saying quantum physics is problem-free, and there are no consistency issues. There are. But I see nothing of value in trying to substitute renormalisation strategies with WAG numerical games and numerical analysis. And all hand-waving. That's what he does. Very similar to what you did by copying and pasting some formulae from a 1968 paper and pulling some numbers from a part of your anatomy, and substituting a logarithmically divergent integral by your wild guess. Zero value from a scientific POV IMO.

A snapshot is the values of all the inputs at some point in time. Yes, "take the average over" is the same as "take the average of", except "over" is more suggestive of a time series, as in "take the average over a period of time".

Really? Do you have some proof or evidence for that? According to the Lorentz transformations, less time passes for the astronaut in the twin paradox than for the twin who stayed on Earth. In @martillo's language, the earthbound twin's beard is longer than the astronaut's beard. What part of that do you not believe, and why don't you believe it?

Does "scientific rigor" mean concocting self serving alternative explanations, rather than giving credence to the actual eye witness reports of people who were there? Did Dunning visit Varginha or otherwise corroborate his theory with people who actually claim it was Mudhinho or whatever else he is positing? If not, that doesn't sound very rigorous to me; it sounds more like confirmation bias - i.e. "I'll fabricate whatever convenient explanation I can to fit these unusual events into my narrative." If you start out with a conclusion that something must be false, and then ignore anything to the contrary, that isn't a scientific approach. No, I'm not trolling. Kind of insulting that you would insinuate that but I'll let it go. There have been too many credible reports lately to dismiss these events. In my view they have to be taken seriously at this point. You seem to fundamentally believe that the possibility of aliens visiting Earth is nonsense, that anyone reporting such events is engaged in "hucksterism", and people who give credence to them are either gullible or trolls. You've said as much in your previous posts. As established I have a different outlook - I think the odds of visitation by an intelligent extraterrestrial species are incredibly high given the number of habitable planets and the age of our universe. I don't see alien visitations as abnormal - it was always only a matter of time. Further - the denial of the probability of aliens is actually very dangerous for our species, but that's another topic. This is how you choose to frame it: "all of the witnesses of the Varginha incident are deluded idiots who have been caught up in mass hysteria, or are making up this story to attract tourists to make money." Then you ridicule it further by comparing it to giants and Paul Bunyan - again because your anchoring belief is that this must all be nonsense. Sure, when you frame it like that, it doesn't sound very authentic. But you have to establish first that those witnesses really are deluded or self serving opportunists before your theory has any weight. When you have this many credible witnesses who have no interest in lying, who corroborate each other in a logical way despite not knowing one another, taken with all of the other cases (such as the Ariel School and many, many others), combined with the statistical inevitability that intelligent beings will eventually visit Earth, such information should be taken seriously and not dismissed, that's all I'm saying.

This all has an air of Reiku/Graviphoton/Gareth Meredith...... and all stations to Cardiff......about it.

ChatGPT is similarly confident when declaring plainly wrong answers as entirely valid

I've already told you in the reply that you've just replied to: Fuctional scope is vastly different between the two Compartmentalization in code but not DNA (when I repeated myself in the other thread, some idiot kept insisting that I'm "using my own writing as evidence" SMH)

EmDriver, I suggest you don't just google up terms and expect to instantly get a counterargument out of it. The "compartmentalization" you linked to isn't talking about various functions DNA perform. It's talking about differentiation of packaging into TWO states. You need an actual modicum of what's being discussed before just using some term you've found. TRY AGAIN edit: I just noticed that you fielded a strawman. I never said anything regarding where consciousness could only arise- I only deny consciousness to artifacts.

My goodness, people are very argumentative against me here yes... there are. I'll give you a respectable science site which explains this. https://www.livescience.com/20350-successful-life-genes-study-suggests.html I may just start ignoring people objecting to things here if they are not willing to investigate the counterarguments. If someone challenged me on something, I'd double check. Asking Dr. Google gives multiple reports on genetic disposition. "Nobody is asking you to abandon your own heterosexual preferences and become a practicing homosexual. " im sorry, but this sounds like an argument of choice. The only way it could be a choice is that everyone is bisexual. Tell me something... if someone identifies as straight, when did you choose to be straight? To have a choice means technically you are orientated both ways. This is implausible for people who are orientated one way and are not aroused by another.