swansont

People who don’t understand the definition of theory in science always tell on themselves

It’s nice to know what conclusion you want, so you can choose the evidence you pretend to cite If it’s that experiment - “At one point, one of the populations exploded far beyond the parameters of the experiment. Lenski eventually discovered that this population had evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, an organic molecule which was part of the solution the E. coli lived in, but which E. coli cannot normally uptake” then it in no way supports the claim that anything was anticipated. Nor is there any mention of antibiotics. So it’s some other experiment or a massive misrepresentation

That’s why I want to see the actual paper, or a relevant quote. A lot seems to get lost in translation in these discussions, and the paper never says what is claimed

You forgot to include your references. “Elena & Lenski, 2003” is just a pointer to an actual citation. I’d also like to know how a publication from 2003 includes information from 2024/5

I didn’t say anything about predicting the mass; AFAICT this was a free parameter, though knowing some information did then allow for some predictions, and others based on some assumptions. I was referring to the existence of the particle/field. Again, I was referring to the prediction of the existence of the Higgs, not the mass.

I wasn’t addressing the paper, I was addressing your mistaken assertion about the physics of the Nobel.

You should read the science explainer linked in the release https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2023/10/advanced-physicsprize2022-4.pdf The first two paragraphs of page four, specifically. (unfortunately I can’t just copy/paste from the pdf) There’s no evidence that locality is violated. If you think it is, go find the signal. It will be some new interaction, the discovery of which is certainly worthy of a Nobel studiot is almost certainly referring to rule 2.7, specifically the part that says members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. … Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted.

I can’t think of a physics context where you would add the magnitude of forces acting in different directions; force is a vector quantity. You’d only add magnitudes as vector components. So it sounds like a poorly-worded attempt to ask for the magnitude of the net force, in a way that doesn’t tip off a possible answer where it doesn’t make sense to ask for the direction. There’s nothing physically meaningful about an answer of 300N, but I know that on occasion people will ask math questions where the physics is incorrect. (Feynman discussed one in one of his books involving finding an average temperature from a simple arithmetic mean. It also used a purple star as part of it, IIRC) Do tell.

One issue with the premise is that if Alice can travel to the other universe (even without time travel), they can’t be identical, since now there are two Alices in one, and none in the other. And if the travel is forced to be symmetric with identical entities, has anything actually changed?

But the EM radiation is unaffected, and you could do a long-term experiment with a larger starting point, like a microwave waveguide that's at cutoff, so as the waveguide shrinks, the transmission of the microwaves would be shut off. You’s be starting with something ~10k times bigger and looking at it for decades. Any reports of this happening? Also, can you address my objections from earlier in the thread? You seemed to start ignoring them when the answers got inconvenient

“Apparent” is the wrong description. In the ladder’s rest frame it might be 5 meters long, but in the barn’s frame it’s 1m long. It has that length in that frame. It might be easier to get the concept with another relative property. In it’s rest frame, the ladder has zero kinetic energy, because it’s not moving when you’re in that frame. But in the barn’s frame it has a nonzero kinetic energy, because it is moving relative to that frame. There is no kinetic energy that it inherently has, and having KE is not an illusion - it doesn’t appear to have KE, it has KE, as a collision will certainly demonstrate.

Moderator NoteAnything you want to discuss needs to be discussed here. Don’t expect that anyone will download anything. Answers that just suggest we go read the paper will not be acceptable So energy and momentum aren’t conserved. Any evidence that this is the case?

There’s a little more to it. The ladder doesn’t “appear” shorter; in that frame the length actually is smaller. Length is relative. There is no absolute frame where it has a “real” length - relativity is not an illusion. (this is a common conceptual issue with people learning relativity). In any given frame, some things are at rest, and others are moving. Certain properties of each thing The missing bit of this paradox is that the doors opening and closing. The pole/ladder doesn’t fit with the doors being closed at the same time, but owing to relativity, the doors aren’t closing/opening at the same time in all frames. They close simultaneously in the barn’s frame, which means that’s not simultaneous in the ladder’s frame.

AFAIK, the two main issues are computation power and data. You extrapolate from the data (temperature, pressure, etc) in a cell of some size and calculate how they would evolve based on the effects on the neighboring cells. A more precise prediction means using smaller cells and possibly smaller time increments, but now you need data from more weather stations. Another limiting factor is data uncertainty, because that error propagates through each step of the calculation, and the equations are nonlinear, so small errors can propagate to become large ones. A QC is not inherently more powerful, though it’s possible that there are elements of the algorithm that a QC would do more efficiently, but that doesn’t give you more weather stations, (including weather balloons to get data from above the ground and you need it on and over the ocean) nor does it solve the problem of data precision and uncertainty, which could be worse if you are doing more calculations.

Does the shrinking hapoen to the diameter of the optical fiber, too? But the light is unaffected? The phrasing here suggests that you did an actual experiment. Did you? There’s no way your graph is actual data.

The surface acceleration g = GM/R^2 so g increases as R decreases (G is Newton’s gravitational constant, R is the radius) If R is halved, g will quadruple

This violates our rules. We’d be happy to discuss things with you, and have you ask questions, but something that’s been filtered through a LLM that can only rearrange known info, and will make up answers in some circumstances? No, thanks.

But what does it mean to have a working QC? What programming do you do with qubits, and how many of them do you have? And how is (or just is) the problem you want to solve one that a QC does well? QC is not synonymous with “really powerful computer” it’s one that is potentially really powerful at solving specific tasks.

Moderator NoteWhile there are various versions of creationism, this does not fit with them, and your torture of logic might be in violation of various international agreements. This is a science discussion site, and there’s no version of you thesis that fits in with our umbrella of discussion. But at least “Creationism says that the logic of fact applies to creations” was good for a chuckle. Don’t bring this up again.

Moderator NoteThis is a computer science discussion. Beliefs don’t enter into it, and preaching is against our rules.

Moderator NotePreaching is not allowed here, and considering that you never returned to your prophecies thread, you don’t get any benefit of the doubt that you might engage in discussion in this one

I can’t help but notice that your response to me seems to be some prepared manuscript, that does not answer my questions. How about doing that?

Moderator NoteThis is not a help-wanted board. It’s expected that you will discuss this here.

How does a massless (i.e. no energy) collection emit any radiation? It can’t be at 0K. It must have thermal energy, and as such, mass.

If you have a black hole, how does the energy leave the system as the self-energy cancels the rest energy?