swansont

(multiple threads merged) How is your idea testable/falsifiable? What specific predictions does it make?

In physics we use instrumentation when it’s needed, which avoids the issue. Eyesight is exceedingly nonlinear and not easily calibrated. In areas where eyesight is used it’s generally where delay issues have no impact. None of this is unknown, nor unaccounted for.

A number of sites say at least 400x is needed to see cells and cell structure

Which is irrelevant to the proposed issue of consciousness If time doesn’t exist, how can anything have a duration? How can such a notion exist, without time? How can your post exist, for me to respond to (now) if it did not exist in the past? There is an order to (causal) events, which tells us that time exists.

Wasn’t the notion that the brain does a bad job of assessing simultaneity below some level of precision your argument? If not, perhaps you can clarify what your argument is. My point is that your brain is only giving you as much truth as you need to have a chance to stay alive, as a result of evolution and within the limits of biology, chemistry and physics. We know it “lies” to us. It doesn’t seem to matter with regard to simultaneity, and we have imaginations and dreams, which are probably a positive rather than a negative. If you think it should give you more truth, you would need to explain how that would happen within the constraints we have.

Sounds like one of Zeno’s paradoxes. This, of course, has nothing to do with consciousness. There’s plenty of evidence that time passed without the benefit of conscious entities being around. But don’t let facts get in the way.

“For the first time since the mid-20th century, over 95 percent of this year’s planned new electric-generating capacity in the United States is zero-carbon.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/04/11/the-next-phase-of-electricity-decarbonization-planned-power-capacity-is-nearly-all-zero-carbon/

! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 says, in part, “We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it” And you continue to post like this is your substack, and not a discussion board Rule 2.8 says Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them

! Moderator Note This isn’t the topic of the thread; you made claims about the Big Bang that are incorrect, so your objections are based on a straw man. Feel free to ask question in another thread to clear up your misconceptions This isn’t an issue of color perception. Your body can’t process information at the nanosecond level, and your brain’s processing is meant to keep you alive so you can reproduce. The notion that it will tell you the “truth” is a straw man

! Moderator Note One topic per thread, please, and the speculations section requires a way to test ideas - you need to make specific predictions, and that means a mathematical model No, it does not.

! Moderator Note Numerology is not science. We require a model with testable predictions, and this isn’t even close

eninn preaching. They did it again, and they are banned, as promised.

OTOH if that fraction of calories utilized is roughly constant, then eating more/fewer calories means you are absorbing more/fewer calories.

! Moderator Note The rules require that material for discussion be posted from rule 2.7 members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. … Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted

By including some kind of deterministic process, i.e. a filter. What non-random result are you referring to?

That’s not a foundation of science; there are plenty of non-random, deterministic interactions. The reading you shared did not say that mutations are not random. It said certain outcomes have a bias, i.e. outcomes do not all have the same probability. The word would be credibility, which is gained or lost by whether one is posting information and making arguments that are credible.

"Changes our understanding of evolution" is not the same as a fundamental new principle. I was under the impression that the susceptibility to mutation not being uniform was known earlier than 2022. Also, the use of "random" is problematic here; things can be random even if the outcomes don't have equal probabilities. Fair dice are random, but you roll 7 more often than other numbers. A normal distribution is not a flat line.

I’m not sure why “unexpected findings” would be the evidence I’m asking for. We have unexpected findings all the time in physics without requiring a paradigm shift. What it does is fill in some blanks or force some small adjustments to existing models.

“Gene-based disease is more complicated than we thought” is not evidence of a flaw in the established biology. It’s not like anyone found that such diseases aren’t genetic. It looks to me like they found that an assumption - that these diseases were based on some simple genetic code - was in error. In that way, the model was modified. That you did not answer the question, and just repeated your previous dribble, suggests you have nothing to offer in the way of evidence. (“this will help cure disease” might just be some boiler-plate PR that‘s included; I saw this quite often in atomic physics, where some discovery or investigation was touted as improving atomic clocks, which rarely happened because the technique was too difficult to implement, or the complexity/benefit ratio was way off. One shouldn’t pay too much attention to the message sent to the masses) edit: wasn’t the COVID vaccine enabled by genetic sequencing?

What did the genome sequences reveal that discredited established biology? If there are none, why would there be any new principles?

! Moderator Note OK, we’re done. Feel free to ask questions to clear up your misconceptions about relativity, but your caricature of it is not what the theory says. Don’t re-introduce your…musings…on the subject

! Moderator Note Your opinion is not what is important. What we want is a model and to see how the evidence supports it.

No, that’s not correct. The speed of light is the product of these two, and it’s not 8 m/s. 400 THz is 750 nm ”time is a point” suggests that it has a single value, which is not the case, but time dilation is an effect on an oscillation frequency. Time is the integral of that frequency (i.e. you count the ticks of a clock to give you the elapsed time) Any claim you make must be somehow testable. How does one test your conjecture?

If there’s no place to land, how do you deploy your ~12.5m diameter balloon? (roughly the same size as a Bell 407, which can lift more weight and is maneuverable)

! Moderator Note This isn’t a conspiracy discussion site; any speculations brought up must comply with our rules.