swansont

! Moderator Note The international language of science is English, which is what we use here

You can call it either one, just like a helium nucleus is also known as an alpha particle The shell naming is an artifact of science history. The emitted light was discovered before the electron shell model was developed. “The names of the electron shells come from a fellow named Charles G. Barkla, a spectroscopist who studied the X-rays that are emitted by atoms when they are hit with high energy electrons. He noticed that atoms appeared to emit two types of X-rays. The two types of X-rays differed in energy and Barkla originally called the higher energy X-ray type A and the lower energy X-ray type B. He later renamed these two types K and L since he realized that the highest energy X-rays produced in his experiments might not be the highest energy X-ray possible. He wanted to make certain that there was room to add more discoveries without ending up with an alphabetical list of X-rays whose energies were mixed up” https://education.jlab.org/qa/historyele_02.html

They probably could, but the GOP already controls the house, and the committee, so they could have just not investigated. I get the impression that nobody likes Gaetz very much.

Yes Right The protons and neutrons would be the nucleus. The electrons are not part of it; they are part of an atom. Pretty much, yes. Yes. But free neutrons decay, so they aren’t around all that long, and free protons attract electrons to form hydrogen

Yes it’s similar - it’s all gravitation - but, as you say, on a different scale.

kakistocracy kak·i·sto·cra·cy government by the least suitable or competent citizens of a state (from Google dictionary)

Which I agreed with. (that’s what the “yes” means) GR did not come from Newtonian physics. GR was math and your position leaves that avenue closed. It would require Eddington’s experiment happen on its own, without being motivated by theory, to spur new theory development. A simulation requires that the math already exist, and real particles limits us to what we’ve already discovered. How does that get us any new physics?

'This process includes the replacement of all first-rate talents, regardless of their political loyalties, with crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is the best guarantee of their loyalty.' (The Origins of Totalitarianism, renewed version, A Harvest Book New York, 1976, 339) I think Trump’s recent picks qualify. He’s pushing to see what the GOP senate will accept, and I doubt there’s enough GOP backbone among the non-MAGA-diehards to reject all of them. There aren’t many well-known loyalists left around, so I expect later picks will be more obscure names —- I don’t think there’s anything keeping someone on the ethics committee from entering the report into the congressional record

How so? The discovery of the nucleus wasn’t a new theory, it was an experiment. Any new atomic theory afterwards had to be consistent with the data from before (e.g. positive and negative charges) and the new one (positive charges in a very dense collection) Rutherfords discovery was not precluded in any way.

Yes. But the “new” part is…new. Newtonian gravity did not give us GR. Yes. Nobody has said there isn’t new physics. But you haven’t described a valid path to get there. So it’s not part of theory, yet it’s a requirement of yours? Something that doesn’t exist and you can’t/won’t define or describe beyond the name? You might as well say we need splunge.

Physics tells us how nature behaves. Its job isn’t to explain reality. i.e. there’s plenty of stuff in physics that are calculational conveniences and don’t actually exist. (field lines and phonons to name two)

GR is 100 years old. It’s established physics, not new foundational physics, which is what this topic is about.

AJ8Hodgson banned as a sockpuppet of AJ©Hodgson

What experimental data? Did you miss all the discussion about the lack of it? Can you give some examples of modern physics models that are “physical”?

Yes, meaning it’s irrelevant to discovering new foundations in physics Check them against what? I don’t know what this even means. You have theory (which is math) and experiment. If there’s no experiment, there is only math.

Is there any science you wish to present?

I’m not seeing how this applies, unless it learned the rules without being told, or observing the game being played. New physics = not knowing the rules.

Coding is the easy part. That would require AI developing something that’s not based on what we know, which is not something it currently does

Where does the math that’s in the code/simulation come from?

Only about 30 years. I did not edit any content. If you want to selectively ignore it, oh well. There’s also what you said (“part of the electorate”) and you acknowledged that lazy/inept people exist, so it seems to me that’s settled and the only issue is how many there are.

Calling a group of people lazy based on race/ethnicity is racist. Insisting that no people are lazy is just cluelessness.

FTFY (emphasis-wise) This is relevant to the discussion…how?

But this is moot; nobody has made this generalization. npts2020 made it clear they were not talking about all people, and you even mentioned “part of the electorate” So? This discussion is happening here. If we discuss what someone did or did not do, we stick to facts

Not sure we can. The fact that age and coherence evaporated from the news once Biden stepped aside (Trump being old and often incoherent), the narrative about crime (down significantly, but not reported as such) and the economy (by many measures quite good, and inflation lower than elsewhere) were choices driven by something other than the facts. I think “narrative” is the operative word here. You might expect it with pundits, but reporting is supposed to be objective. A lot of media became storytellers rather than reporters. Yes, some of them undoubtedly were. Can you honestly say that there aren’t/weren’t inept and/or lazy people out there?

It’s quite possible that some area of physics is up a blind alley, because there is a more fundamental formulation that looks quite different but reduces to the known case under the conditions we can experience. Kinda like how phlogiston worked, until it didn’t. Or the plum pudding model of the atom. I don’t know how you find the better model without experimental data to push you.