joigus

I'm going to insist on this point just for a little while. I'm not completely sure that I'm faithfully echoing @studiot's concerns here, but I think my concerns and his at least partially overlap. It is not enough to build analogical models of individual particles with every particle popping up in the model as an independent character in a play that could or could not be there. Kaons, for example, have known lifetimes, decay modes, etc., that must be accounted for. We know that kaons, and hyperons, and nucleons, are made of quarks. Where are these quarks, and the hadrons they give rise to in their decay modes? These topological charges should have a multiplet structure to be fit into the known multiplets of the standard model, for example, \[\left(\begin{array}{c} e\\ \nu_{e}\\ u\\ d \end{array}\right)\] \[\left(\begin{array}{c} \mu\\ \nu_{\mu}\\ c\\ s \end{array}\right)\] \[ \left(\begin{array}{c} \tau\\ \nu_{\tau}\\ t\\ b \end{array}\right) \] There are also tight constraints on chiralities for these leptons, so that right-handed leptons do not couple to the weak force. IOW: The weak force violates parity maximally. Then there's the question of the mixing angles: eigenstates of mass are not eigenstates of the gauge charge operators. Where are all these constrictions? Don't get me wrong; I deeply sympathise with these topological efforts. The part that I'm missing is the one that makes them try to replicate more closely the known features of the SM and QM. It's all a little bit as if an archaeologist unearthed a couple of broken columns under the ground of old Israel and proclaimed, "well I think I've found Samson!" We're never short of people who make such claims.

Mmmm... To make do. To do. To make. To make love. To love. To love making. To do better. To make better. To make love better. To love making better. All of that in order to make do better.

The terminology has changed quite a bit over the years. Look at this for an appetiser: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton_(disambiguation) (I think there are more.) The bone of contention to me is: What about quantum mechanics? Bell-Clauser-Horne-Shimony, Bell-Kochen-Specker and Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger-Mermin theorems --and their experimental confirmations-- tell us that it is not consistent to assume on the basis of classical logic alone a particular orientation of the particle.

No, there isn't because those are just three numbers. The product of two primes is always a semiprime, because that's the definition of semiprime. Is that what you're on to? "Some denominator"? Oh, that' clear!!! Will you just state clearly what you're trying to get at? I don't get it. And I don't seem to be alone in this. "The graph is what's important" just doesn't cut it. Make a statement. If you don't make a statement there can't be "any thoughts". Except: "what's this all about?" Something like "the distance (or the quotient, etc.) between consecutive semiprimes goes like such and such". It can be a conjecture, (a guess, an intuition). It all sounds to me like mathematical innuendo. And it's very annoying.

Absolutely spot-on, @Sensei. On a similar vein, here's a couple of very interesting TEDtalks by Karen Lloyd, Hyper-slow metabolism microbes that live under the Earth's crust: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2DzsgJSwcc Hyper-slow metabolism microbes that live under the sea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbgB2TaYhio 15 minute talks for the general public. Some catchphrases by Lloyd are priceless. Makes you think that the amount of microorganisms may have been, if anything, grossly underestimated.

Not so meandering after all.

Well, yes but: (my emphasis) Also: (my emphasis) Also: This recurring point is what I mean by off-shell. Can you address any of these questions? You can get all kinds of weird things by adding 4-vectors, one pointing to the past light-cone, and another pointing to the future light-cone. You can obviously get the 4-vector, \[\left(u^{0},\boldsymbol{u}\right)+\left(-u^{0},\boldsymbol{u}\right)=\left(0,2\boldsymbol{u}\right)\] But that's unphysical. That's what we're trying to tell you.

Exactly. And even for macroscopic objects, what they look like strongly depends on the kind of radiation we use to look at them: https://www.wired.com/2014/04/the-world-looks-different-when-you-see-in-infrared/ When you look at this person covered by a plastic bag, couldn't we say that "normal" reflected light is deceiving you, by offering a picture of the object that is actually less faithful than emitted infrared light? In order to get an infrared picture of the object, we also need to map these colours somewhere in our visual cortex. So there is a neurological aspect about the whole question too. Most of the light we see is reflected light, and the way our brains process this information gives rise to the usual "palette" of visual concepts, such as shiny, matte, red or blue, fuzzy, etc.

(my emphasis) I take it that humans are neither moving nor non-moving. Who invented the third? We, the weird ones? Before "we" existed? I disagree with @MigL: This is way past silly. It is a meandering nonsense.

I don't want to be insulting but this doesn't look promising as the start of a theory about the Earth.

If you can afford a long-night vigil, you can see it in the Summer too. Slimmer chance of an overcast sky, perhaps. At least in Spain, where I live. 7 years ago, I was stopped on the outskirts of the village where I lived by the rural police --Guardia Civil--, who asked me for ID, and had lots of questions for me, none related to Orion. They couldn't believe I was crazy enough to relish in contemplation of "lovely Orion" at past 5AM almost in the middle of nowhere, trying to catch glimpses of Betelgeuse. A kindred spirit.

Politics aside, the Sokal affair still gives me food for thought, even all these years down the road. I knew it would interest you. Thanks for appreciating it. If you overlook the political implications, there's still a lot to be learnt concerning this topic on purely scientific/philosophical grounds.

No way to get lost that way, unless you're a flat-Earth advocate... So what if so? Don't tell me you're a covert ageist. Marilyn Monroe never gets old.

Trying very hard to picture Pope Francisco as a bouncer in a club --unsuccessful so far.

I think I'm ready for a straight answer to what was, after all, a straight honest question: Could Moses, the Book of The Dead, the Greeks and early Christian writings conceal the scientific technology of gods? The answer is yes, they concealed it so well that nobody can find a trace of it.

Got it! The chicken!!!

Yes, I've read the Epic of Gilgamesh, commented by Andrew George, and I don't remember anything about lasers.

@Abhirao456 You may be interested in this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair It's very much related to what @iNow's point.

Not a single useful rule to be applied empirically have I found there. Nor a single useful rule to be applied in an explanatory way. Many pompous words, that's all. You should have to find an expert in cosmogony, the mind, matter, ethology, and what not, to be 100% sure whether he's making any sense at all. For the time being, I will stick with other's opinions that it's mostly word salad. Just to clarify, I'm not a professional theoretical physicist, although I've had all the training, and keep up-to-date reasonably well. But my approach is very much on the mathematical/conceptual side. But don't go just by me, or any other theoretically-minded person. Science is heavily constrained by experiment. No matter how deep and far-reaching your theoretical analysis may appear, if you can't make a prediction or retrodiction (explanation of what's already known) pretty quickly, you're probably just playing freely with words or concepts. That's a good test.

Very interesting, @beecee. Funny that this man probably saved millions of lives and yet nobody calls him "saviour".

One thing strikes me: If the Egyptians, the Bronze-Age Hebrews, and the old Mycenaean Greeks had such technology, how come they fell under a wave of lowly dispossessed people circa 1250 BCE? Surely these people didn't sweep them away with their lasers, did they?

Type "extraordinary claims" on Google interface and follow autocomplete... Sagan and Laplace have something to tell you. Or follow the frog at the top of the page.

It's BS at its grandest. 🤣