swansont

To learn how nature behaves. Most of nature falls under the "not human" category. What bias do I introduce? Not all science is psychology. You say you can measure stuff by experience - what of someone with a different amount of experience? Do they come to the same conclusion? If no, isn't that a problem?

Absent technical analysis, I have lots of questions. Nothing you’ve posted is a reasonable substitute for technical analysis. From the wikipedia article “The light sail is envisioned to be no larger than 4 by 4 meters (13 by 13 feet),[1][50] possibly of composite graphene-based material.[1][33][6][36][43][51] The material would have to be very thin and be able to reflect the laser beam while absorbing only a small fraction of the incident energy, or it will vaporize the sail.” My objection, which is not addressed. The small fraction is very small. Also, the payload has to be on the dark side of the sail, or it, too, gets vaporized. I think that might introduce some stability issues. How do you keep the system from rotating/tumbling? From one of the links (52) in the references https://www.inverse.com/article/14352-the-starshot-breakthrough-light-beam-is-really-a-million-lasers-which-s-insane “Eduardo Bendek, who has studied Alpha Centauri for nearly his whole career and is working on a proposal to send a space telescope out to study the region, thinks the biggest issue behind Starshot is to figure out how to avoid “vaporizing the spacecraft” with the light beam. The nanocraft are just a few grams in mass. There’s an extremely high likelihood that firing a 100-gigawatt laser at them would cause them to evaporate. Bendek cites a previous experiment at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory that began a thermonuclear reaction using a laser with a fraction of that power. “I don’t know how they’re going to figure this out,” he says.”

That’s fine, because nothing I’ve said should suggest otherwise. I don’t know how you got from my observation that science tries to remove the human factor from measurement (because that introduces bias) to anything about awareness and being made of physical matter.

If I am trying to e.g. measure time (which is nominally my day job) the last thing I want to do is inject the human factor into it. I want to measure the signal from the cloud of atoms, and do that very precisely and repeatedly. Humans being involved generally mucks that up in various ways. You can substitute in most physics experiments for this. Measure the properties of an electron or other particles, or materials, etc. I have no idea what "how can human factors be separate from matter" is supposed to mean, or what its connection is to what I previously posted.

There's an app that will supposedly take a picture of your LEGO bricks and tell you what you can build, so just counting pips would seem to be a slightly lower level of difficulty

There are sciences that study the human factors, as iNow points out, but in other fields, one strives to remove the human factor, since that tends to introduce bias.

I'm not sure, but I think just pumping oil and natural gas out of the ground releases CO2, though methane might be the big culprit, and "flaring" would be combustion. Decomposition and wildfires are some natural processes, and chemical reactions in industrial processes presumably release CO2. Concrete/cement production is a rather prominent source of CO2; I don't know if that's accounted for in "non-combustion" or "buildings"

That's likely correct; there is overlap in many disciplines. But philosophy is not science.

! Moderator Note Speculation requires a model and evidence. Postulating a supreme being is not one of the options here.

Where does it say they are doing this? They look to be taking the total CO2 emissions in a country and dividing by the population. That's all. If the CO2 is emitted by a process occurring in that country, it's CO2 emitted by that country. Who is blaming the oil-producing countries? I don't see a blame-o-meter column on that site. Consumption, perhaps not, but production certainly is. Even when you subtract out the methane production, beef has a large impact. https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane

Your thesis, as I understand it, is that the vaccines are causing this problem - that the virus would not be mutating if there was no vaccine. Pointing out that the virus is mutating, which is an expected occurrence, is neutral with respect to your thesis. Not having a vaccine - which, AFAIK is more of a regulatory hurdle than a scientific one - merely puts us back in the same boat as we were before. But not as worse, because more people are alive and fewer are dealing with the long-term effects of the virus, as compared to having no vaccine at all. So the question is, are you going to provide evidence to support this notion you've advanced, or are you just going to insult people who call you on your crappy argument? (I can assure you, the latter will not fly)

No, we can't do this in the near future. "Equipped with a laser sail just under one meter (3 ft) in diameter, such a spacecraft could be propelled by a 70 GW laser array to about 26 percent the speed of light in about 10 minutes" There are a lot of unstated assumptions here. I'm guessing someone just looked at the force exerted, calculated the acceleration and that was the end of it. Here is just one: what level of reflectivity does your solar sail have to achieve so it isn't vaporized by 70 GW of laser power? Another: at ~0.25c, how long would your probe get to look at a solar system?

Well, you should do more research. The Bohr model has been dead for almost 100 years. It was superseded by quantum mechanical treatments back in 1926, when Pauli and Schrödinger both published solutions for the hydrogen atom. ! Moderator Note Please note that linking to files is insufficient to foster discussion. You need to post a model here, so that people can discuss it without following links. You should start with the fundamental parts of your thesis before forging ahead, because we don't permit speculation to be based on other speculation.

It's not your earnings the rule refers to, it's any impact on earnings from the documents you quote. If you quote a chapter of some book and now people don't have to pay the author for that (say it was serialized, so one chapter was being published every week)then that would likely be a violation, even if you only published 1 chapter out of a very long book. But if you are quoting yourself then there is no copyright issue. Also, you are free to paraphrase. It is only specific wording that is protected, not the idea behind it. So quoting from a book might be an issue, but describing the plot of a book is not protected. e.g. you might have to worry if you are quoting from the book "Jurassic Park" but describing it as a book about cloning dinosaurs (and going into details of the plot) is not protected. Or, in an example I've seen elsewhere, there is a famous Charles Addams cartoon that shows ski tracks going on both sides of a tree. His cartoon is protected by copyright, so you can't publish an exact duplicate without permission (or one of the other allowable conditions of copyright, like fair use), but anyone can draw a cartoon with that same concept - the specific expression is copyrighted, not the idea. (again, I am using US law here; details will vary from country to country) You might see "in the daytime, the sky is blue" written somewhere, but stating that would not be a violation because this is common knowledge.

In the US, if you only quote small sections and provide citations, it should be fine. It’s called fair use. You run into trouble when you quote too much; this can potentially impact the market for the quoted material. You should consult your own country’s laws for specifics.

That would be another macroscopic, thermally-influenced event. There could be others.

! Moderator Note You have presented no experimental evidence to support your claim, no alternative model to test, and are obviously not here to learn. Here endeth the trolling. Don’t bring the subject up again.

Yeah, that’s nonsense. They attract or repel. The interaction only differs in that one aspect, just as physics says.

Subatomic effects? Probably not. The object itself might have a different composition than the area. The K-T impact, for example, deposited iridium and other rare-earth elements; the normal surface composition of chemicals is different. If there were radioactive isotopes, they will be present. But effects on terrestrial materials are most likely going to me macroscopic, such as melting due to high temperatures, and not subatomic. What would be an unusual spin orientation? You have two options: up or down.

Saying something is easy. What you need to provide is the evidence (i.e. point to the experiment) that others can examine. And you need to do this with your next post.

Forgive me if I don’t take your word for this. Do you have any credible evidence of this? Mere assertion is not even close to being sufficient

Nothing about science demands naked-eye observation. Much of modern physics is inferred by the experimental results. You don’t e.g. actually see photons zipping around after being emitted by an atom, you measure a voltage or current after they hit a photodiode. You verify the model by whether you are getting the expected signal under various conditions. Please stop with the OT nonsense.

I don’t see one. Who is making this claim? Yes, there is attraction and repulsion, but that’s just a sign difference. The form of the interaction is the same, i.e. the same equations apply.

What is “high speed”? This is from StringJunky is the other active thread discussing interstellar travel IOW, your scenario does not jibe with the actual logistics. You can’t just hand-wave your way through this. Some actual analysis is required.

The models based on them work. By their very nature, you can’t directly detect a virtual particle.