Leaderboard

I think if there were scientific evidence it would be documented better than in a youtube video (which, BTW, needs to comply with rule 2.7, found in the “guidelines” tab; a video is not a substitute for substantive discussion and documentation. Asking people to watch a 25-min video rather than you putting the effort in to explain the situation is not going to fly)

Incorrect interpretation of the evidence.

Merleau-Ponty construed existence as understood through the body. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Merleau-Ponty Merleau-Ponty understands perception to be an ongoing dialogue between one's lived body and the world which it perceives, in which perceivers passively and actively strive to express the perceived world in concert with others. He was the only major phenomenologist of the first half of the twentieth century to engage extensively with the sciences. It is through this engagement that his writings became influential in the project of naturalizing phenomenology, in which phenomenologists use the results of psychology and cognitive science. Merleau-Ponty emphasized the body as the primary site of knowing the world, a corrective to the long philosophical tradition of placing consciousness as the source of knowledge, and maintained that the perceiving body and its perceived world could not be disentangled from each other. The articulation of the primacy of embodiment (corporéité) led him away from phenomenology towards what he was to call "indirect ontology" or the ontology of "the flesh of the world"

I knew. I was just being deliberately stupid. 🤔

It would be cheaper and more flexible to buy a $5 Arduino clone. e.g. https://www.ebay.com/itm/145160861832 and relay module for $1.5 e.g. https://www.ebay.com/itm/354746987710 You can then control any 110/230-volt electrical system and turn it on or off on demand using a hand-written C/C++ program that you put on the Arduino board. Sample code in the video below. It is very simple. An 8-channel relay for Arduino costs $6 here, so you can control up to 8 different electrical systems with different parameters. https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+use+relay+arduino e.g.

As soon as I saw it I belly laughed. It's also nice that it isn't nasty.

There are 7-day programmable timers. You’d only have to reset it once a week. Or do e.g. a 42 hour cycle I think there are 14-day timers, too

Now that is funny!

AIkonoklazt has been banned for repeatedly arguing in bad faith and re-introducing closed topics

It is surprising to me that the insurance industry hasn't managed to kill DST yet. Whether the actual figure is 20% or not outside of Saskatchewan, the trend does seem pretty universal. https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/risk-management/news/daylight-saving-time-sparks-20-surge-in-claims-46791.aspx "In fact, collision data from 2014 shows a marked 20 per cent surge in claims in the days after the time change."

If artificial consciousness becomes even more indistinguishable from wet meat computer (biological) consciousness than it already is, does it really matter?

Just looked up the definition:

Yes, the SMT-VSL and the expanding universe theory are equivalent. This means that there are no observational or experimental differences between these two points of view. If you are seeking to observe differences, then you are really saying that the SMT-VSL and the expanding universe theory are not equivalent because any observable difference is a non-equivalence. If you are abandoning equivalence, then why would matter shrink in preference to an expanding universe? The size of atoms is governed by laws of physics, whereas the size of the universe is not, so one would not expect there to be a constraint on the size of the universe similar to the constraint on the size of atoms. Also, if you are abandoning equivalence, then where specifically is the non-equivalence? That is, what specific observation or experiment distinguishes these two theories? This actually requires you to look beyond the apparent equivalences to something not deducible by a mere change in the point of view.

You can’t use the Newtonian kinematics equations if the motion is relativistic. There is no terminal velocity - terminal velocity requires an opposing, speed-dependent force.

Let [math]M[/math] be the mass of the non-rotating spherical mass (neutron star but assumed to be non-rotating), [math]R[/math] be the radius of the spherical mass, and [math]h[/math] be the height above the ground at radius [math]R[/math] from which the object of mass [math]m[/math] (measured at height [math]h[/math]) is dropped. Assuming that the collision with the ground is completely non-elastic, the energy [math]E[/math] (also measured at height [math]h[/math]) released is: [math]E = \left(1 - \sqrt{\dfrac{g_{tt}(R)}{g_{tt}(R+h)}}\right) m c^2[/math] where [math]g_{tt}(R)[/math] and [math]g_{tt}(R+h)[/math] are the [math]tt[/math]-components of the Schwarzschild metric at [math]R[/math] and [math]R+h[/math] respectively. Thus: [math]E = \left(1 - \sqrt{\dfrac{1 - \dfrac{2 G M}{c^2 R}}{1 - \dfrac{2 G M}{c^2 (R+h)}}}\right) m c^2[/math] Note that [math]\sqrt{\dfrac{g_{tt}(R)}{g_{tt}(R+h)}} = \sqrt{\dfrac{1 - \dfrac{2 G M}{c^2 R}}{1 - \dfrac{2 G M}{c^2 (R+h)}}}[/math] is the ratio of the mass of an object at [math]R[/math] to the mass of the same object at [math]R+h[/math], the object being at rest at both heights.

My first thought was that it’s a clever social media marketing ploy to promote the Elon Musk SpaceX global internet network Starlink project. Just a random guess, though. Regardless, ‘it’s the season:

mezarashi, i'm not being defensive, i'm just frustrated that people aren't thinking very hard. AND you just prooved my point about mining. Your relationship had six steps to it, like 6 degrees of seperation, fun game by the way. It took effort to figure that one out. My fact on the other hand has what, one, maybe two steps? IDIOT! i'm not trying to start some cult. I think i said something like that somwhere, i'm sure there is a perfectly scientific explanation for the relationship, just asking if anyone knew what it was. If you are so positive this is just data mining with no relevance, show me how the numbers are not unique. Show me how they are very common and meaningless. I'd really be fine to accept such an explanation if you could actually show it to me.

youre saying that its all bs despite video evidence and credible witnesses? i thought nerds were smarter than that "supernerd"

what makes them idiotic? just because you say they are?