swansont

Which is completely beside the point. Repeating the strawman doesn’t make it any more relevant.

We have a threshold in place, in that we ask for (peer-reviewed) support for claims, and most people comply. We trash claims relying on AI, since they fall short on the trust metric. And most people familiar with science have a BS detector. Yes, it will be a bigger problem, but vigilance will mitigate it to some extent.

Yes, it depends on the observer. Functionally no different than claiming the train can’t be moving and stationary. But in the train’s frame it is stationary and in the station’s frame it is moving. You can’t be moving and stationary if motion is “real” - can’t have <whatever amount> of kinetic energy and zero - it’s the same misunderstanding of relativity

"What are you studying?" is fine. "Why do you need these answers?" should be addressed by the fact that it's in HW help.

This is a subject that comes up from time to time in reported posts, but is rarely on target; it's usually just a complaint that someone said something snarky. There was a thread on this some years ago, but as that got bogged down with some particular instances, I thought just a general discussion might suffice I've imported a few statements from the other thread that are useful I'll add to this that an ad hominem need not include an insult, but merely a personal observation. "You are wrong because bald/old/tall people are never right" is an ad hominem because a personal observation is used instead of refuting some actual point.

According to relativity, two inertial observers will see each other moving while they claim to be at rest. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility. Except, of course, that second statement is 100% wrong - motion is relative. As Markus notes, there is no absolute frame, so it's perfectly fine for one to claim they are at rest and someone else is moving, and for the other observer to claim the same thing. The important issue is that physics works the same for both, and there isn't an experiment you can do to conclude absolute motion or absolute rest for inertial observers.

! Moderator Note The motivation for asking a question is generally not something that the OP needs to provide.

! Moderator Note A couple of points (apologies, this is not to call out exchemist here, because others have raised similar issues) 1. Whether or not this is a bot is not an issue to be raised in a thread; that's off-topic. If one is worried that a member is a bot, one can choose to not respond. 2. Being a bot is not currently a rules violation. It's also not likely to become one, because how does one conclusively determine this? Feel free to open a thread to discuss this. 3. Mods will deal with rules violations, but, considering point 2, please don't report such posts, since there's nothing to be done absent any rule-breaking.

The charge does not need to exist within the field. Maxwell's equations tell you how the field behaves if there is a charge present in a particular volume, and also when a charge is absent. The field behavior of EM radiation is the latter. A parallel-plate capacitor has a field in a region where there is no charge. Similarly, you have magnetic fields in regions where there is no current flow. This is completely consistent with Maxwell's equations. Logically, if there were a charge within a photon, then there would be N charges for N photons. The classical behavior of the field should reflect this, and it decidedly does not.

Arguing that a program couldn't include the capability of modifying its code or function is ludicrously ignorant. The argument is that a program could include the capability of changing its code. Teleology is a straw man.

What does this have to do with the geodesic not being a straight line? No, that’s not accurate (it’s a cross product, and not from its “original point”), but it also doesn’t apply.

It depends on the properties of the material. Some transmit thermal IR (polyethylene does) and it looks like mylar transmits a decent amount near 10-15 microns https://www.researchgate.net/figure/IR-transmission-spectra-of-polymeric-substrates-Mylar-with-thickness-d-40-mm-1-and_fig2_327932890

It’s not difficult to find sources that say there is nothing to this https://www.health.com/condition/stroke/solar-flare-health-effects https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/science-verify/solar-flares-geomagnetic-storms-cmes-do-not-affect-people-humans-on-earth/536-9d58a725-6c74-4efd-85e8-7cbf1b3a55fb

In principle, yes, if you have an array on the scale of the GW wavelength https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.00996

The nature of the property is matter of metaphysics, i.e. philosophy. Science deals with how nature behaves.

Counterpoint: no, it's not. You choose to interpret it that way, which is followed by ranting about how stupid the notion is. But it's your choice. Even in biological evolution, the origin of life is excluded from the theory - that's abiogenesis. So your insistence that a program has to create itself is just performative nonsense.

The sun has energy owing to its mass (mass is a form of energy), and the gravity (gravitational potential energy). It undergoes reactions which emit radiation, which also has energy. The term 'solar energy' merely points out the source of the energy. The radiation isn't part of the sun anymore.

So what? You’re rebutting a claim nobody has made.

It’s not my thread, and I’m really not in the mood to tolerate you being obtuse. (I am reminded of the phrase The failure mode of “clever” is “asshole”) So don’t expect my continued participation in this little game

Why not use a word that means change over time? Really? Where is the contradiction?

Do I, in fact, expect this? What's your evidence of this? Remember, it isn't true just because said so - that's not an argument. Back up what you say. (I read that somewhere) Also, a Geiger counter could be used to measure a length, under certain conditions. Using it as a Geiger counter. It's not difficult to envision it, IMO, leveraginge the 1/r^2 nature of a point source of radioactivity.

It's not stupid if you consider that evolution is merely change over time. We speak of language evolving, or technology evolving. Of course AI is going to evolve. It just won't necessarily be Darwinian. It's not at all apparent to me that, even if one restricted this to the narrow definition, that computer code COULD NOT be written to modify itself. What is the restriction making this impossible?

OK. Why would you expect a Geiger counter to measure length? How is it you've heard the term Geiger counter but not know what it is such that this would be a reasonable question? No, not really

Is this directed anyone in particular? As a rhetorical exercise, I fail to see the point you’re making.

Take it up in the physics section. You made an assertion, and you were wrong.