swansont

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.

Sunset being the operative word here. The sun would block the view - you need to be able to view Jupiter when it’s dark, and line-of-sight to Jupiter has to be far enough away from the sun to do the observing. Plus, Jupiter would have moved. I don’t see a way to achieve the geometry required. You could get close if you waited about 11.5 years, since oppositions/conjunctions are on a ~13 month cycle. “At closest approach, Jupiter will appear at a separation of only 0°55' from the Sun, making it totally unobservable for several weeks while it is lost in the Sun's glare.” https://in-the-sky.org/news.php?id=20270831_12_101 image from https://www.fas37.org/wp/planetary-opposition-and-conjunction/

We have greater precision these days, because we have atomic clocks. How accurately can you divide a 24-hour day with the technology available back then? Pendulum clocks were a recent invention, and most didn’t have minute hands because of their limitations. Mechanical clocks have errors from temperature and humidity variations. Days have 24 hours, but that’s an average for solar time - that’s why GMT is mean solar time - it’s an average solar day. The location of the sun at noon varies, and determining noon is subject to the same kind of limitations as other astronomical observations. So maybe you are precise to around a minute or so, but that’s ~10% error on this experiment. How could that refer to light crossing the earth’s diameter? It probably means not visible for 11 minutes as compared to the expected time, but as discussed earlier, that can’t be for the earth on exact opposite sides of the sun.

There’s a list of historical determinations of the AU in this link. The ones in the 1600s tended to be low, by as much as 40%. The best ones from that era are still off by around 7.5% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit There would be errors in Jupiter’s position as well, so the distance to Jupiter would have errors, and there would be limits on the timing precision and accuracy.