Leaderboard

Did you get your Physics PhD from a home schooling environment or something? There seems to be some rather glaring holes in your physics education...

Arguing that a program couldn't include the capability of modifying its code or function is ludicrously ignorant. The argument is that a program could include the capability of changing its code. Teleology is a straw man.

As a note for anyone who may stumble upon this post in the future: This is something I wrote when I really didn't understand much about science and I was also ignorant about a lot of other things. Unfortunately its one of the things that first pops up when I search my name, and its honestly really embarrassing that this exists out there, but unfortunately this forum doesn't delete posts, so all I can do is attach a comment to express my discontent with my silly past self.

Thanks!

"You can't catch me" Nobody's fool.

The reply was: It does not actually answer the question, "how fast". To answer this question, one needs to take the derivative, \( (\frac 1 {1-t})' = \frac t {(1-t)^2} \). This grows infinitely when \(t \rightarrow 1 \). Thus, the answer to the question "how fast is 'fast enough'?" is, "infinitely fast".

Please note what it says on the website. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Btech+applied+science+unit+14A&sca_esv=594049696&source=hp&ei=eGqMZcbKCLnWhbIPrra4gAo&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYx4iBjvsOtDmoB1KoM0zZkkk8SVAYP3&ved=0ahUKEwjG5t6cnbCDAxU5a0EAHS4bDqAQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Btech+applied+science+unit+14A&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ih5CdGVjaCBhcHBsaWVkIHNjaWVuY2UgdW5pdCAxNEEyBxAhGKABGAoyBxAhGKABGApI10NQAFj6QHAAeACQAQCYAbYBoAGcGKoBBTE1LjE1uAEDyAEA-AEBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAhEQLhiABBiKBRixAxiDARjUAsICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYxwEY0QPCAggQABiABBixA8ICDRAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGArCAgoQABiABBixAxgKwgIFEAAYgATCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICBxAAGIAEGArCAg4QLhiABBjHARivARiOBcICBxAuGIAEGArCAgcQABiABBgNwgIIEAAYFhgeGArCAgYQABgWGB7CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGAw&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1 This stuff is University level, definitely above A level, it was not even on my S level all those years ago. So you have have quite a few prerequisites in Chemistry before attempting it. As exchemist said you don't solve chemical equations they are nothing like mathematical ones. And they don't have terms they have species - reagents and products. In fact they are more like a recipe in cookery. Eggs + flour + water = egg noodles Eggs + flour + water = bread Should should we really be starting by finding out what the question you were asked really said, because it said nothing about solving ?

According to relativity, two inertial observers will see each other moving while they claim to be at rest. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility. Except, of course, that second statement is 100% wrong - motion is relative. As Markus notes, there is no absolute frame, so it's perfectly fine for one to claim they are at rest and someone else is moving, and for the other observer to claim the same thing. The important issue is that physics works the same for both, and there isn't an experiment you can do to conclude absolute motion or absolute rest for inertial observers.

No it’s not, because measurements of space and time are inherently observer-dependent concepts - there is no absolute frame at all, so there cannot be a contradiction. What all observers agree on is the spacetime interval. This is a rather silly statement, since whatever device you have used to create this post is based on a relativistic theory - the Standard Model, especially the part of it dealing with electromagnetism. Obviously, your computer isn’t an optical illusion, and using relativity to construct it has resulted in quite a useful machine. Have you ever used a microwave? An old-style CRT Monitor? Had an MRI scan? Seen a thermometer field with mercury? Used the GPS on your phone? Used electricity generated in a nuclear power station? Etc. All of these are things that inherently rely on relativistic effects to work.

! Moderator Note To clarify, this Reported statement, along with similar ("Go jump in a lake"), is NOT a suggestion that a person commit suicide. It's an old-time admonition to go elsewhere, stop bothering us, get lost, scram.

A self-professed wiseman recently said (within the last 60 minutes, IINM): Why are you replying if you don't have a point? Are you forgetting that "making a point" is "making a point regarding the topic at hand?" Do you have the ability to not respond to a thread in which you have no actual argument to contribute to?

It's illustrating what can be made from what. A common game to test organic chemistry knowledge is to ask the student to show a route for synthesising a given compound, using only alkanes or something very simple as the starting point. We got very good at that in my first year at university. I still have a copy of R O C Norman's "Principles of Organic Synthesis" on my shelf. One learns a "vocabulary" of synthetic reactions, which can then be deployed to construct a wide range of molecules. This scheme shows you a range of steps that interconvert various types of organic functionality.

Let me try to explain it with a bit of algebra. In an expanding homogeneous isotropic universe, a distance between any two points - let's call them, galaxies - is proportional to a number, \(a(t)\), called scale factor, which increases with time, \(t\). So, for example, if a distance between some two galaxies at some moment is \(D\) then later, when \(a(t)\) is twice as large, the distance between these two galaxies is \(2D\). Thus, this distance increases with time as \(a(t)D\). If the universe is finite, then there is a largest distance in it, which, just like any other distance, is proportional to \(a(t)\). Let's call it, \(a(t)L\). The only way for the \(a(t)L\) to become infinitely large is that \(a(t)\) becomes infinitely large. But, if \(a(t)\) becomes infinitely large, then distance between any two galaxies, \(a(t)D\), becomes infinitely large. IOW, all galaxies become infinitely far from each other. We of course know that it isn't so. Thus, either the universe was finite and remains finite, or it was infinite to start with.

If Relativity were not true, then the Kinetic energy of the Muons would have to follow Newtonian rules, and the measured energies of the Muons are not large enough. Example: For a muon traveling at 0.98c, Relativity gives a time dilation factor of ~0.2, meaning, for the muon to reach the detector within its lifetime under Newtonian conditions it would have to travel ~5 times as fast or at 4.9c. However, The KE of the muon moving at that speed under Newtonian rules would be almost 3 times greater than that predicted by Relativity and moving at 0.98c, and more importantly, Almost 3 times that measured in the experiments.

Oh boy... ...They just HAD to add that stupid bit in, didn't they? No. AI systems don't evolve and can't EVER evolve, because the process of evolution isn't that of design. There's no teleology involved in evolution, unlike any and all artifacts. Artifacts involve teleology by definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artifact (substitute "alien," "green little men," etc for "human" if you want) Even so-called "evolutionary algorithms" come with fitness functions that have been programmed by a person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_function You can't just kick the can of programming down the road until it disappears into a hand-waving rhetorical background.

Ah therein lays the rub. Why not use the term "change over time" instead of (especially in "news articles") "evolving" (complete with misleading pictures to boot? https://www.science.org/content/article/artificial-intelligence-evolving-all-itself "Written to modify itself" makes as much sense as "program something so it doesn't need programming." It's self-contradictory.

Be nice... or take a long walk off a short pier. Why are you bothering with us? Given your supposed experience in science discussions, you are awfully hot-headed. Do you think we should fawn and help you present your pet ideas? If you assert, expect resistance... tis science.

Are you in the Luddite club, do you fear the future? You are coming across like a kid with his fingers in ears and eyes shut, bawling.

Here is a very simple logical proof that I have just come up with that proves conclusively Relativity is just an optical illusion. It shows that Relativity has a built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical falicy can be correct no matter how many experiments claim to prove it. According to Relativity, two inertial moving observers will see each others space contract and time dilate. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility if the effects are real. Objects and the passage of time can not be both small and large at the ""SAME"" time for the ""SAME"" observer. The only possible explanation is that the observed effects are an optical illusion. Any theory based on Special Relativity, such as General Relativity, must also have the same problem. Consequently all of modern physics, which is based on Relativity, needs to be rethought. Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A Train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the Train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the Train will see it not contracted (L). So the Train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to time (T not equal rT). Both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated. If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the Train, then it must be an optical illusion. The Wang and Sten papers support my theoretical calculations. The Shantz paper supports my experimental results of the antenna experiment. Please read the following argument: Here is a very simple logical proof that I have just come up with that proves conclusively Relativity is just an optical illusion. It shows that Relativity has a built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical falicy can be correct no matter how many experiments claim to prove it. According to Relativity, two inertial moving observers will see each others space contract and time dilate. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility if the effects are real. Objects and the passage of time can not be both small and large at the ""SAME"" time for the ""SAME"" observer. The only possible explanation is that the observed effects are an optical illusion. Any theory based on Special Relativity, such as General Relativity, must also have the same problem. Consequently all of modern physics, which is based on Relativity, needs to be rethought. Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A Train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the Train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the Train will see it not contracted (L). So the Train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to time (T not equal rT). Both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated. If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the Train, then it must be an optical illusion. For more information see: YouTube presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sePdJ7vSQvQ&t=0sPaper Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: http://vixra.org/abs/2309.0145

Why are you replying if you don't have a point? Are you forgetting that "making a point" is "making a point regarding the topic at hand?" Do you have the ability to not respond to a thread in which you have no actual argument to contribute to? Your first sentence is beyond ironic. If you count "there is no such thing as programming without programming" as a law in computational science, then there is still "a scientific law or theorem that makes artificial consciousness impossible" UNLESS you subscribe to epiphenomenalism, which would push the issue to functionalism, which would only be refuted via philosophical principles and not scientific law.

"MOOT POINT," says the non-colander-donning hoomahn...