swansont

No, it’s a diffuse reflection, but since there’s a lot of area undergoing reflection and not much to absorb the light, it’s very bright. Glass transmits a lot of the light, and only reflects a lot at grazing incidence.

! Moderator Note This is just a re-post of previous material. No outstanding questions have been addressed, and there is still no mathematical framework. Don't bring it up again.

! Moderator Note We're not going there. This is off-topic and bad-faith framing of the discussion.

It's not a scientific hypothesis, and the evidence against biblical creation is legion. There are scientists who accept the existence of a deity, but for many it probably boils down to the words of Laplace, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

Diffuse reflected sunlight is not all reflected sunlight. Specifically, it excludes specular-reflected sunlight. Anything that acts like a mirror is undergoing specular reflection. A car has lots of convex curved surfaces, so it probably reflects less light into your eye - you wouldn't see the image of the whole sun, which likely mitigates the danger. Also, look up snow blindness. A situation where diffuse reflection can be a problem.

Homo sapiens has always walked upright; that behavior predates the species. Yes, humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. Which means that a chimp did not turn into a human, as you claimed.

If only one could use a search engine to find basic information like this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution (bipedal locomotion started perhaps 6-7 mya, so this is actually a pretty tame threshold. A lot of variation in humans has occurred since then. Homo sapiens emerged a few hundred thousand years back, so there’s been speciation since then)

Are there any polls saying that this is a big issue with voters not already going to vote for TFG? “68% of Americans say immigration is good for the country today” 27% say it’s bad, but if they are already in TFG’s camp, it’s not going to sway the election. https://news.gallup.com/poll/508520/americans-value-immigration-concerns.aspx And, as Phi has suggested, the do-nothing GOP can be blamed for not passing legislation; the president can’t pass laws by himself. It might also be pointed out that this is a manufactured concern (surprise!) seeing as the number of immigrants in 2021 was about 1.5 million, lower than any pre-pandemic year this century. It was ~2.5 million a year under TFG, pre-pandemic https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/immigration/

When you quote a source you should indicate what is quoted, so that it may be distinguished from your own words. One article is not a consensus. Is there a mainstream definition of intelligence you can point to? Plants don’t choose where to sprout; there is no optimization there. Reactions that all of a species of plant has is not intelligence - a plant doesn’t choose to face the sun, or open its petals when it rains. That’s hardwired behavior. There’s no choice, so there is no intelligence. Your description suggests that simple stimulus-response is “intelligence.” As I said earlier, this dilutes the definition - you can have behavior of nonliving entities or chemical reactions that do some of these things.

I am aware that plants communicate. But to ascribe this to intelligence dilutes the concept to the point of being meaningless.

There are organisms without brains. How intelligent is a carrot? An amoeba?

How is it that non-intelligent species are able to find food? Do non-intelligent species all do trial and error? Or is this a false dichotomy?

No, Mickey! (Steamboat Willie entered public domain today; taken from bluesky)

This is off-topic and was split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133170-guided-evolution-split-from-evolution-not-limited-to-life-on-earth/

“Guided evolution” as I’ve seen it used, has an end goal in mind. Unguided does not. Unguided follows the rules that exist within its realm. The source of those rules doesn’t matter.

(t,x) isn’t even two-dimensional time unless we’re redefining what x stands for (without any explanation)

What their ruling ends up as is speculation. Is there some legal mind saying that this could be the ruling? What, specifically is the legal challenge before the court? edit: it’s possible they could rule that primary elections are not for a government office - you don’t hold office if you win - so the 14th doesn’t apply. The question of whether he engaged in an insurrection isn’t addressed. They could rule that the 14th prevents you from holding office, not running for office. That just kicks the can down the road, but it would only matter if TFG wins the presidential election in the state. Otherwise he doesn’t get electoral votes and there’s no issue.

I’m saying AFAICT they won’t decide an issue of fact, that TFG did or did not engage in an insurrection, that a lower court decided. As I stated.

“Although the Supreme Court may hear an appeal on any question of law provided it has jurisdiction, it usually does not hold trials. Instead, the Court’s task is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied” https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/ There’s a court in Colorado that’s decided he has, as a matter of public record. (two courts, I think)

Temporarily. The topic here is genetics.

AFAICT (IANAL) they will not adjudicate whether or not TFG engaged in an insurrection. They are not trial judges. There may be several ways they might be able to overturn the decisions. People have been denied public office without having been convicted of engaging in an insurrection. “Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors.” https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/ One could argue that folks like Jefferson Davis, and many others, did not run for office because they knew they weren’t eligible. TFG famously doesn’t care about such things as rules, since they’re for other people to follow. But there’s plenty of documentation that he was involved in insurrection.

Alleged? If someone who was under 35, or not a natural born citizen, declared to be running for president, we would not be talking about alleged violation of Constitutional requirements. If Obama declared, we would not be saying that he was ineligible because he allegedly already served two terms.

You have listed three spatial dimensions. This clarifies nothing for me. You can have situations where a you only need to look at one, or two dimensions. But it’s got three spatial dimensions It’s the 2-D surface of a sphere, which is a three-dimensional object. Why not just just say that? You can’t have 1/r^2 if you’re excluding r

What is 2+2 dimensional? Two of space and two of time? You need 3 spatial dimensions to get the inverse square law. The behavior requires a 2-D surface that depends on radial distance, i.e. three dimensions. If you only had two, the interaction would drop off as 1/r https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/gravity-extra-dimensions/ There is no such thing as a 2D sphere

As exchemist has noted, you ignore the role of observation. Science must agree with experiment. Logic can only take one so far. "logical" ideas have been discarded because of disagreement with experiment - it was considered logical that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter objects, but this is not how nature behaves. Science does not explain why things are the way they are - that's a job for philosophy. The job of science is to describe how nature behaves.