swansont

Nobody is claiming that you don’t compare your model with observation. Then the data are not defined by the models. The data doesn’t know what model you’re later going to use. “F=GMm/r^2 allows you to actually do tests and launch probes to other planets. “Things are attracted to each other” doesn’t have sufficient power to do that. “If I asked you to prove me wrong about the solid universe you would use current models as a basis for proving me wrong” We would compare your predictions with experimental results. i.e. the data. But since the data agree with the current models,that would be equivalent. Also, you need to show ypu’re right - you own the burden of proof here. But you keep stalling. Where’s the beef?

Decisions would have to include the ability to decide not to do things, as I had suggested. And self-awareness. I don’t think the fact that we’re animals is relevant. Can an insect choose to become vegan? Does an insect kill out of passion? Does it kill because it doesn’t like the victim’s politics or religion?

Speaking of problems, I just saw a short documentary on the Ronan Point collapse and the associated issues with the design and corner-cutting during construction.

But humans are sentient, and do most of these things voluntarily

What does this have to do with the topic? edit: I assume your downvote means you aren’t going to explain yourself

https://scienceforums.net/topic/135919-using-the-quote-function-2025-edition/ Without math you can’t make specific predictions or analysis. A physics model without math is just a story Data are data. Changing data would be scientific malpractice. The math is the model. s = vt is a model of displacement under constant velocity. Your data are the values of the variables you measure, e.g. distances and times. Those data do not change even if you apply a different model, e.g. non-zero acceleration.

Press the quote button at the bottom of the post, which will quote everything. Delete extraneous material, please or Highlight the text you want to quote, and click on quote or Copy/paste, hit the + inside the black circle in the top ribbon, and click on “wrap in quote” Hit return/enter to move the cursor out of the quote box. Please avoid responding inside the quote box To break up the quoted material, to respond to a specific section, put the cursor in the text box and hit return/enter a few times, and it will split the quote box in two, with a place for you to respond in between them.

If one wanted to inject some actual science into the discussion, one could estimate the power needed to generate one of these signals and then discuss the implausibility that it was generated by inhabitants of some planet.

Which, of course, it was. People measure length without relying on time-of-flight of light. Meter sticks and tape measures. Surveyors do it over significant distances.

This being a science site we want science. That means a model, which you have not provided, and testable predictions. Are there any, in your wall of text? This is a bunch of crap. Models either fit the data or they don’t. We don’t need a preaching pep-talk. We need to see that your equations fit the data we already have. You do have equations, right?

Not a compelling argument that it’s worth my time.

I, for one, don’t care much about the origin story of most businesses. I haven’t been to a McDonald’s in years because it’s not particularly healthy food, and when I’ve had fast food other options have been more convenient.

It’s not like any of this is an absolute. What works better for you doesn’t necessarily work better for someone else. You are confusing ”makes sense” with “makes sense to me” And, like many people who show up here with diagrams, you overestimate how intuitive it is, likely because you are already familiar with the details. I don’t understand this claim. You don’t include them in the 1-18 numbering system, either. Or am I just imagining the numbers 19-32?

If you use alternative physics you have to come up with new names for things, because the ones in use have a particular meaning. The Hubble sphere is defined in terms of mainstream physics

Moderator NoteSame old, same old. Merged with one of the existing threads.

By the same token, we can’t be sure that the one we got was the last message, if it was a message. You don’t have a theory here, as you’ve acknowledged. It’s a narrative (of sociology, perhaps). The thing is, we’re a science discussion site. You’re cherry-picking what little data there is in order to support your narrative, but that’s not the way science is done.

Yup. I saw a report that said 89,000 atoms a second. A billion years gets you a around a gram

The Hubble sphere has a radius of ~14 billion LY. The Milky Way has a diameter has a diameter of ~100k LY. So less than a part in 10,000. That’s “significant”? You seem to be allergic to doing any actual math as part of this.

Moderator NoteInserting your own ideas into someone else’s thread is hijacking. Your own speculative idea can be discussed in one thread, in speculations.

What are these? Our rules require that material for discussion be posted, and that discussion be able to proceed without clicking links or downloading files

This one is a dipole. Similar to a disk magnet https://cod.pressbooks.pub/physics1100/chapter/magnetism/

In the case of the toroid, the field is circular, so there is a symmetry that’s not there for the bar magnet. There’s also no transition from outside to inside the material, where the field is more concentrated. Labeling anything N or S would be arbitrary.

Yes, but we humans don’t notice these dimensions, because they are only noticeable on a very small scale - as you say, Planck scale or smaller. So you can’t have it be true that they’re important for life but also we don’t notice them. They would have to have effects above the atomic scale, meaning there has to be experiments that would reveal them.

The creek became more contaminated once he jumped in

Also it’s possible that staff have been directed do and not do certain things.