swansont

No. We require equations as part of this kind of conjecture. Simply repeating your assertions is not sufficient, regardless of how many exclamation points you use.

You need to do a better job of explaining it. The rotation of electrons (but not actually physically rotating) does not cause the electric field of the protons. Yes, if you’re looking at more atoms vs fewer of the same kinds of atoms, but that wasn’t your claim. Also it’s not necessarily true if you compare different atoms. A mole of hydrogen has less mass than a tenth of a mole of iron. Depends on the atoms, and “energy to rotate the electrons” is an awkward and ambiguous description of atomic structure. There’s no physics that I can contort to interpret this as a valid description. Explain your research, using some sort of rigor (i.e. we need equations) which is required by our rules An engineer should be able to supply valid equations Simple, and wrong. You have provided no evidence that atoms “consume energy” to “rotate their electrons” and such a description shows a decided lack of understanding of basic atomic physics.

Yes, but not both at the same time. Hereditary means lifestyle isn’t a factor. And the point was they’re sort of a package deal. It’s difficult to disentangle things that give good health outcomes from bad, but overall we have better outcomes. The OP asked what’s wrong with our immune system and used cancer as a dubious example

I don’t know what the BC of the big crunch would be, if that happens to be the fate of the universe, and neither do you. Least action ceases to apply once there’s an energy that you can’t write as potential energy, so I don’t see how that’s the “standard” answer. The issues of cosmology involve more than general relativity, so “solving GR” is insufficient.

I have no idea why you think the big crunch would be a time-reversal of big bang.

Man is also responsible for the improvement in diagnostics and treatment, and as was pointed out, when you mitigate mortality from infectious disease, you live long enough to die from something else, including cancer. It’s not like people didn’t die of cancer >100 years ago, and many of the factors you list aren’t an issue of one’s immune system

You mentioned gravitational waves. We see them from black hole mergers. For a time-reversed solution, the boundary condition would include where the waves came from, and how they could all arrive at the site of the merger at the same time. The wave itself exhibits time-reversal symmetry, but the entire scenario does not, an issue you continue to ignore.

Solutions can exist but be considered unphysical. e.g. there are times you solve a quadratic and discard the negative results because it’s not possible or otherwise makes no sense - it violates a boundary condition of the problem, although it might not be an explicitly stated one. You’re getting dangerously close to this being a reopening of a closed topic.

In physics (actual physics) we quantify things. You claim that gravity depends on the number of atoms; you should be able to present an equation that represents this assertion, and then compare it with experimental evidence . I think you will run into trouble, because there will be a conflict with Newton’s laws of motion. But it’s up to you to come up with the equations.

Causality would be the primary reason.

I misread something; I retract my objection.

No mention of dark matter on that page. A link needs to point to the actual relevant information. Not a place to dig for it. You’re providing, at best, a veneer of physics. Not any actual substance.

Moved to ethics, because this isn’t science news To echo previous points, Gen-AI is at its core plagiarism, so I’m not sure how you give it “authorship” Do we extend authorship to spellcheck and autocorrect?

Moderator NotePosting to advertise your book is against the rules, as you were previously warned. It needs to not happen again.

Non-staff apparently can’t, though there was an iteration of the software where you could soon after you registered but it went away after a certain number of days or posts. The likely rationale being that changing display names will confuse people in discussions once they can associate content and/or a style with a name. I think one can see how that could be abused, much like a thing that some sockpuppet accounts try to leverage.

I was under the impression that the car companies are trying to blame drivers because “self-driving” doesn’t actually mean self-driving, owing to fine print and disclaimers. Tesla is being sued for false advertising because they had promised that capability.

Moderator NoteMaterial for discussion needs to be posted, not linked to. This shouldn't be a problem for a 1-page document

Your ellipses are doing too much work here. It was drugs, not devices, that could encourage certain behavior. But inventions, or technology, is not the same as science, and the OP specified science. One can use fire, or the wheel, or a smartphone or GPS with no clue about the science involved. One might argue that fire and the wheel required no science at all, though improvements did. It was only necessary for science to reach as far as the ones who invented or advanced the technology. The impact or reach of science has a ripple effect through technology, but adopting technology is not really an issue of science. Politics and economics, and perhaps other factors. So I have to ask if this is what the OP wanted to discuss.

I agree; I think this is the basis of lawsuits about accidents in “self-driving” mode (and the disclaimers about how it’s not really self-driving) I wonder when we’ll get to the point when the issue isn’t whether an accident is the fault of the automated system, but whether a human could have reasonably avoided it while the computer did not

Who is legally culpable if an AI-piloted vehicle causes an accident or breaks the law?

The decision to use these weapons was made by people, as was the decision to ban their use. The Haber process won him the Nobel prize, and is used for making fertilizer, which helps feed people, likely saving far more than 26,000 lives You can discuss the ethics/morality of making weapons but blaming science, IMO, lacks nuance.

You’re making a leap here. Saying that science has a positive effect is vs having a negative effect. That says nothing about the amount of reach, or the nature of the positive effect. And such a general observation does not lend itself to a precise enough inquiry. How does science have a positive impact? There are myriad ways. We find treatments for diseases like cancer and diabetes, improving lifespans and quality of life. We get technology, such as GPS and smart phones. How we decide to use it all affects whether we are solving problems or causing them

Why do you think science can solve these problems? Science can provide us with tools, but it’s up to people to decide how, when and where to use them

Nothing that he discovered is 11 light minutes away, and once again you are ignoring that the discovery was based on multiple measurements based on different distances. He discovered that it took longer for light to get to us when the distance is greater. You’ve been given examples of how we know this is not true. (GPS relies on light-travel time and GPS works) You obviously don’t understand the Rømer experiment well enough, and don’t seem interested in learning anything, which means the thread is closed and you don’t get to bring it up again. You also don’t appear willing to discuss simpler scenarios that would address your misconceptions but are free from the limitations this presents (not a constructed experiment, limited precision, etc.) but in case you are, you are allowed to open a thread to discuss how we know real-time is not the case, and other related topics, using modern examples.

That light has a speed and is not instantaneous arises from the fact the there was a delay in the signal. We already have seen that the earth orbit was not known precisely, nor would the distance to Jupiter (which moves, so the distance to it matters in the calculation) If the time is off by 10%, earth orbit off by 10% and Jupiter position by 10%, why is a 25% difference in the speed a surprise? You keep ignoring that it’s based on a differential measurement. One trip took longer than another This “mistake” has happened more than once, so at some point one has to wonder if you’re just trolling.