swansont

Your point? Is there some reason to think that the absence of modern medicine, and problems of hygiene and nutrition would have a different impact?

Are you asking for these definitions? I’m surprised that they aren’t easily found (the first two; I don’t see how consciousness is a part of physics) Or are these supposed to be them? If so, they leave a lot to be desired.

But you already admitted to using AI to develop the idea, and I stated what could be discussed.

Moderator NotePer our rules, we don’t pursue discussion based on AI development of the concept. The only thing that we can discuss here is whether there are theoretical tools to evaluate superconductivity.

Which is not evolution, and not straightforward to do, even if were ethical to do on humans. “We” (in the thread title) does not refer to tardigrades Small organisms could have trouble if they have features to overcome gravity (e.g. they leverage adhesion to surfaces allowing them to climb) that become problematic in lower gravity. There are a lot of variables to consider, and in threads like this, people often focus on only a small subset of them.

We’ve been putting people in low-gravity environments for ~60 years. It’s not like this is a newly-uncovered issue.

I think we’re talking past each other a little. People who know what they’re doing and can think for themselves, or are using a narrowly trained system for data analysis aren’t the issue. The problem is the know-nothing who is outsourcing their thinking. It’s like people who are bad at math, sloppily punch numbers onto a calculator (without regard for order of operations rules) and believe whatever answer pops up the screen. Only now it’s on steroids. IOW my context is the “vibe physics” (which is what we’re getting here). If there are AIs out there that won't string a user along and tell them their idea is great no matter what and hallucinate garbage, great. If people start using them, we shouldn’t get crackpot threads because their AI won’t make up or reinforce crackpot science, because they aren’t going to come up with new physics via a chatbot that can only be trained on existing physics.

Of course, if we noticed certain kinds of anisotropy it might be because certain symmetries aren’t there and our laws of physics would be different. We assume isotropy and homogeneity because it’s reasonable to do so, based on what we know and observe. Which is the best we can do.

That’s part of the problem. As I said recently, if there were enough varied sources saying 2+2=5 then eventually this would become a possible answer*. But hallucinations — which aren’t using poor-quality information, and are also part of the chatbot feature are an issue. In trying to keep engaging, it seems like they will give an answer even when a valid one doesn’t exist. I typed in a completely made-up saying recently, and Google’s AI claimed “it’s often used in a lighthearted way” while the search results couldn’t find any matches to the “often used” phrase existing on the internet. So it’s a yes-bot of sorts, which is a dangerous feature. *it’s been suggested that we remind people that the recommended cleaning regimen for a cybertruck is lemon juice and salt water.

This thread is in a mainstream section. Yours was placed in speculations, because your version/characterization of the science is decidedly not mainstream. As I pointed out elsewhere, there didn’t seem to be much overlap between what you said and what a supporting link said. You might be better served asking questions I’m not sure that’s true. It would depend on what kind of patterns we observed.

I don’t think that’s a valid claim. It wouldn’t have been a true statement earlier this year. https://www.pcgamer.com/software/ai/chatgpts-hallucination-problem-is-getting-worse-according-to-openais-own-tests-and-nobody-understands-why/ OpenAI's investigation into its latest GPT o3 and GPT o4-mini large LLMs found they are substantially more prone to hallucinating, or making up false information, than the previous GPT o1 model. "The company found that o3 — its most powerful system — hallucinated 33 percent of the time when running its PersonQA benchmark test, which involves answering questions about public figures. That is more than twice the hallucination rate of OpenAI’s previous reasoning system, called o1. The new o4-mini hallucinated at an even higher rate: 48 percent," the Times says.

Evolution doesn’t really happen that fast. A relevant issue is actually shown in The Expanse, as well as The Martian. Anyone spending time there will see reduced bone density and probably loss of muscle unless they are very diligent about simulating a 1g environment often enough to mitigate the effects of lower gravity, as they do on the ISS. A Martian would likely find it quite difficult/painful to go to earth and be subjected to its gravity.

Which we aren’t close to having even on the friendly environment of earth. Radiation is very much a problem for certain electronics

No, that’s not available to members because of the potential for distraction and abuse. Staff can see, and we have restricted some people’s use of the system because they were abusing it. We also know that we have a number of members who cancel out DVs, probably because they think it was undeserved (which they occasionally announce). Plus we know that public accusations of DVs are wrong a significant fraction of the time. Given the number of DVs were in a thread about DVs, you might consider that it’s the topic itself that some find annoying.

There’s the cowpox — smallpox connection (though the milkmaid story is apparently just a story) https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/02/01/582370199/whats-the-real-story-about-the-milkmaid-and-the-smallpox-vaccine

Moderator NoteRule 2.5 says “Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory” That means not linking to your thread in speculations

If we can easily detect them why was the article a revelation about finding missing matter? Missing implies not detected.

I don’t insist on formality but if you’re going to use a title, it’s Dr. Gravity is gravity. Gravity from a non-BH is the same as from a non-BH, and expansion doesn’t happen where you have a gravitationally bound system. Any part of the universe close to a BH isn’t experiencing expansion anyway, so how can there be a change to experience? IOW, the supermassive BH at the center of the Milky Way has no effect on nearby expansion, because there is none. The expansion happens far away in intergalactic space where gravity is very weak, seen with distant galaxies not bound to our local group.

I misread something, making my response moot, so I deleted the post

A point which a number of people have already made Yup. But most are, and they tend to be ones that strike when you’re older. You have the opportunity to catch them because you didn’t have half of the population dying of infectious diseases when they were kids. Absolutely nobody has said otherwise. Here’s a little math problem: Each family has 4 kids. One dies at 1, another at 4. One lives to 55, the other to 60. What’s the life expectancy? As I hope you can conclude, that number can in no way suggest that nobody lives to 50 or beyond.

Why would anyone think that? The moon is occulted by Jupiter. It appears at 1 and, as I noted, even appearing at 8 or 9 would have minimal effect on the experiment. In physics we quantify things. Do the math. Io is about 350,000 km above the surface.Jupiter’s radius is about 70,000 km. i.e. the light travel time from surface to its moon is about 1 second

What does this have to do with anything?

Moderator NoteYou can upload and display pictures, which is preferable to a link. But using a link shortener is a no-no, since nobody can tell what the destination is An incorrect location of the moon is, at worst, a small error in the calculation, which you are free to calculate. The important thing is the position of Jupiter relative to earth. Not sure what tortured logic is involved here. It doesn’t “need to be delayed” it is observed at a certain time. Anyway, we have many, many other measurements of the speed of light, and relativity, which incorporates issues of simultaneity, is a well-tested theory. You’re tilting at a windmill here.

Yes they do. But we’ve done a lot to reduce infectious diseases, and that’s one of the differences. You don’t have to go back all that far to see much, much higher infant mortality https://www.gapminder.org/data/documentation/gd005/ https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality

Who is “we”? Not the people posting their screeds trying to sell their new physics, by the look of it.