Bender

I can see several issues:- batteries are not always easily accessible - batteries degrade. How are you going to deal with different customers dropping and buying batteries with different degradation level? - standardisation between manufacturers That's why I mostly see possibilities in lease cars, taxis, car sharing companies ... You need a large enough netwerk.

Sure it can. If it has a colour sensor, it can see colours. Consciousness is a fuzzy concept anyway. I have yet to see anyone give a property of consciousness that I cannot give a computer. Not quite. There is plenty of energy we cannot perceive. In fact our eyes can detect only a really tiny part of the elektromagnetic spectrum.

I don't think the energy is stored in the electrolyte. Replacing the entire battery is possible, but most feasible for eg taxi or bus companies where all vehicles are the same model.

Since the atmosphere is rather thin, this would hardly have any effect on escape velocity.

Okay, I will stick with your explanation until I find a problem with it. But please keep it consice. Real science goes like this:1) make claim 2) provide evidence 3) discuss/critisice/scrutinise/etc... You can philosophise all you want, but don't call it science.

If you properly define things like "compassionate" or "genuinely empathic", I can program a computer to show this behaviour. Same for the "freshness" of air, but this would obviously need some sensors to detect e.g. CO2 levels. I can program a computer to (randomnly) avoid interaction if there is a risk of not getting a response (fear of rejection). About psychopaths : what makes you think they are more like robots? They simply have different weighing functions to make decisions. It's not like the rest of us don't weigh our actions. On second thought, one could argue that psychopaths are less like robots. After all, most robots are programmed to take the well being of (other) humans into account.

What is this doing in a science forum?

Technically, that's not correct. Infinity wouldn't have started. It would still have taken only 0% of infinity to do that.

Are they? "significant" has a very well defined meaning in science. What is the p-value you used? I know you should define it before the experiment, but in this case, I'll cut you some slack. What is your estimated probability of your experience being the result of coincidence? A thousand to one? A million to one?

I was confused because I don't see any material dependency. Do I understand correctly that the elongation here would be for a beam without any cohesion forces? So do you agree that no such effect occurs under (quasi-)uniform acceleration, regardless of how large it is?

Let's say the probability that Dave's experience was coincidence is only one in a billion. In that case seven persons will have such an experience every single day. In fact, if there is a day when nobody has such an experience, that would be really spooky. In reality, however, I think the probability is considerably larger, so thousands of persons have them every single day. Is it spooky when you happen to be one of them: sure. Is it spooky if it happens repeatedly to the same person: of course. Is it remarkeable: not at all. It is expected.

He made a perfectly valid point. You could claim millions if you can prove precognition (Randi isn't the only one). Given how people like money, the fact that nobody claimed the rewards is a pretty good argument against precognition.

But where did you get the value from? Was it given? It appears that you have three unknowns, but you used only two equations.

Are these effects complimentary? Are they similar in order of magnitude (I suppose that depends on the situation)? Does this temporal elongation cause internal forces, or does it merely appear elongated to an outside observer? And what about the pancaking?

I assume you refer to the pdf you linked a couple of posts ago? I think you can do the math, so I'm not contesting any of it, but as far as I can tell: - there is nothing about pancaking in there - there is a gradient in the acceleration, so it says little about a situation with only acceleration (or at least negligible gradient). I do have a question related to what is in there: how much does this result deviate from simply doing the calculation with Newtonian mechanics, which seems to do reasonably well for calculating the Schwarzschild radius? I'm not used to this Schwarzschild metric used.

Have you resolved this issue? I still don't see how acceleration proper can make someone into a pancake without a spaceship that can turn you into a pancake regardless of whether it is near a black hole or not. I admit I downvoted one of your posts, but only because you accused me of trolling, not for anything content related. I even commended you on you math.

Why is iy=-36 A?

It depends where you draw the line . Of course, if the answer is no, you are in big trouble.

Is it ok to kill musquitos? Is it ok to call pest control to kill rats or cockroaches? Is it ok to own a cat who hunts mice? Is it ok to accidentally kill a bug by stepping on it? Where do you draw the line? Everyone draws a line, even if you claim nor to.

If that works as wel: of course.

Which elements are stable has little to nothing to do with chemistry. QM has been very effective in making lots of predictions and we have no reason to believe there could be other elements. There were holes in the PSE, and we manager to fill those with new elements, exactly as predicted. By analysing the spectrum of other stars, we see the fingerprints of elements we know, exactly as predicted. We depleted most combinations of protons and neutrons. There are hypotheses of a "stable" region above 120 somewhere, but that refers to possible half-lives of milliseconds or perhaps seconds, either of which would be huge, but not exactly practical for use. We even ventured into replacing protons or neutrons with other baryons, but these are all extremely unstable. Even neutrons, by far the second most stable baryon, decay in minutes to protons outside a nucleus. Every single particle we know of degrades to protons, electrons, neutrinos or photons. There may be other weakly interacting particles, but if they are weakly interacting, they aren't good candidates for new element-likes. In short: in our current, effective models there is no room for new elements and through our astronomic observations, we have no reason to assume it is going to be different elsewhere.

I must admit that I have no idea about the type of exotic material you ask about. I thought that a ionic materials would indicate why it might be unlikely: if you want to avoid electrons from recombining with holes, don't you end up restraining them from moving at all? Unless you dissolve the ions in water, then you have both positive and negative charges moving around. But it is possible something like this exists but I just haven't heard about it.

But where did you get the idea that they are never refuted if even a biased source admits they are questioned. Given the context, questioned can very well be interpreted as refuted.

Ionic bonds almost completely avoid recombination...

Nobody challenged the spaghettification effect due to a gradient in acceleration. You claimed that there would be "pancaking" in the absence of a gradient e.g. near a massive black hole, where it is possible to have a large acceleration but a small gradient. You have yourself provided zero math concerning that situation. The math you did produce shows that such a situation is indeed possible.