swansont

It’s not medical advice, as such. We’d discuss how e.g. GLP-1 drugs control blood sugar or the approach behind chemotherapy. It’s not diagnosing a problem or recommending a course of action for an individual. The problem here is that it appears to be no more than a WAG. There’s no substance to the proposal, and absent that it’s just trolling.

Theorists in physics are still physicists. In any event, the board’s rules require it. You need to be able to formulate some way it’s testable.

I think I have accounts on both but there’s a lot of traffic, so there’s rarely a chance to contribute. And I was on Bad Astronomy but left after it merged with Universe Today for similar reasons. On one of them (I think it was BAUT) I had serious issues with how they acted; there was someone who posted some nonsense but some of the post was legit, and I had the audacity to point that out. No capacity for nuance. (IIRC they were the same group who didn’t believe in significant digits). The episodes reinforced my feeling that we do a better job of moderating here.

Put a 225 lb weight on it

Why would this work? What is the possible damage it could cause and hiw would you mitigate it? You need to do more than give some wild guess.

History, rhyming again…

This is word salad. Layers of frequency and dimension? Experiencing resonance? How can anything “overwhelm reality”? Asserting facts is kinda necessary for a theory. You need to have it be testable - making specific predictions that can be compared to experiment or observation. How does one do this with your proposal? What specific predictions does it make? How is it falsifiable?

All electrons are spin 1/2 particles with a -1 fundamental charge. How would that be “diluted” by having an infinite number of them? How are Newton’s laws of motion “diluted” by having an infinite number of entities? Or the theory of evolution?

How about you provide a few worked example of how your equation might be applied.

Moderator NotePosting to advertise your website is against the rules. The link has been removed. Please review our rules, especially the one on AI https://scienceforums.net/guidelines/

How does one test it? It’s nonsense. I see a lot of buzzwords. Not much substance. Google can’t find these references, Not even yours. AI hallucinations. We don’t allow discussions based on AI slop.

It sounded like you were saying there’s no point in thinking about or investigating why the constants have the value they do. I don’t think certain physicists (or philosophers, for that matter) would be keen on being told not to do that. Or that they shouldn’t check to see if they are indeed constant.

Again, I have no idea what you mean. It’s like you’re having a thought but only post the second half of it.

I’m not going to quote the whole post; the proposal is obviously AI generated and such content is not allowed here

He didn’t just blurt out the statement at random. The context of the conversation matters.

Not sure how this would be applicable to physical objects I don’t see this as having a lot of traction; you can certainly investigate what happens if the constants have different values and see how (or that) things fail to work — changing the characteristics of fusion, for example. What we might not know is whether you can change only some of the constants without affecting others, but I’m not sure how that gets tested. There’s a limit to any irregularities for similar reasons. If the nature of interactions were inconsistent, how do we end up where we are? How do we get data of various vintages that’s all consistent with the interactions being the same?

You posted about science and technology, and it’s up to the presenter of these things to show that their work is valid and correct. That’s a hurdle everyone has to overcome; it’s not bias. The work is compared against how nature behaves, so if the idea doesn’t measure up to that, it’s not biased to reject it. Einstein was talking about inspiration and intuition, which are important, especially in coming up with something new. He wasn’t talking about just making stuff up, untethered from reality, and he was in no way implying that knowledge is unimportant. Why can’t you test it and show the results? Without specifics it’s impossible to say for sure, but lots of ideas run afoul of experiments that have already been done, which means they get rejected out of had.

Yes, tariffs are killing us. You handed it to me so it’s nacho problem, but the news is not grate. Not gouda at all.

The thing about the US situation is that Trump is alienating almost everybody to some degree. The ones not directly affected by the fascism are or will be affected by the repercussions of it (farming labor shortfalls, and possibly construction) which will drive up costs. His tariffs and gutting food-based aid programs are angering the farmers who supported him but now can’t sell their crops. The tax cuts for the rich are at the expense of healthcare, which are poised to skyrocket. The attorney general even managed to piss off the gun rights people. And the Epstein files loom large. Plus, everybody can see that Portland and Chicago aren’t war zones. The frogs and chickens, et. al, are making sure of that.

It’s a matter of how many photons it emits. With a dark-adapted eye, you can discern 5-7 photons hitting the retina, but because there are losses in getting there, around 50 or so photons need to hit the eye. How many have to be emitted is an issue of the geometry of the situation. https://research.physics.illinois.edu/QI/Photonics/pdf/PWDec16Holmes.pdf A 1 mW source pulsing for 1 microsecond is emitting something like 10 billion photons Color sensitivity is a factor; you are much more sensitive to green than red or blue, but within the so-called visible range (400nm - 700nm) this is around a factor of 10.

Why they work is the underlying science, which you have to understand to decipher all this. Isn’t it faster to just learn science to understand how the universe behaves? To what biases are you referring?

Moderator NoteOur rules require that material for discussion be posted. Not offered via uploads or links.

WTF does that even mean? I don’t agree because it’s demonstrably wrong. There aren’t two sides here. There is a standard we expect in science discussions; either you meet it or you don’t. Much like I said about televangelists earlier: they might have started out as true believers, but at some point they get corrupted by the money to be made.

The fact that you’re calling it anecdotal evidence points to one issue. Also, you’re hardly the first person to be challenged to provide a better accounting than “I heard/saw it in a show” One reason people get called out for this is that it’s really easy to misremember the details or the context. There’s a decent chance the show was talking about people in the middle ages, because there’s a misconception that flat earth persisted as the prevailing thought persisted far longer than it did. I made a statement and your response was that there was no evidence of it being true. I don’t see how that’s supposed to count as “basically agreeing” Asking for better/proper support for your claim is supposed to be a message for you to improve the quality of your response. But you apparently decided that the real problem is that I pointed out the deficiency.

linking to bio pages with no information on the topic is not actually helpful. One might count it as just more trolling. IOW, who TF cares what you claim they think? OTOH, the wikipedia page disagrees, with examples and lots of actual citations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth Looking for actual evidence is better than guessing.