Phi for All

Like you, I'd rather she pick Mayor Pete. He's part of the Sanders movement, did an award-winning high school essay on Bernie, and would hopefully steer us more in that direction as a country. Two terms with Harris, then President Pete? I sometimes wonder where we would be now if Bernie had won in 2016. Mark Kelly has been arguing against Israeli tactics for quite some time. I'd actually rather see him as VP if I can't have Buttigieg. It seems clear that the Dems don't want to FA&FO, so Shapiro is probably their choice.

I think it was assumed in all the mentions of tidal interactions.

I think this is the basic flaw with analogy, that definitions need to be "looser" in order to facilitate the comparison. The universe is often said to be "evolving", so of course some folks are going to misinterpret that as biological evolution and notice how similar the two can be made to seem. And in this case, "complexity" is being used subjectively to fill the gaps in an idea (definitely not a theory) that has no real substance. The behavior of inorganic matter in the universe is NOT comparable to biological evolution.

I'd believe this if it was 2015. He never wanted to be president, he wanted to be the man Hillary Clinton stole the election from, so he and Steve Bannon could start their own outrage factories. Now though, he has to know that losing means actual jail time. I think he was so flustered by Biden dropping out that he has nowhere to pivot to. His Biden strategies are worthless against Harris, and he's refusing to make nice with the folks he needs to win. It will be interesting to see Harris' VP pick. If Josh Shapiro can guarantee 19 electoral votes that Slump was counting on, I'd lean in that direction, even though I dislike Shapiro's Gaza stance and his traitorous backing of school vouchers.

The heart of the problem is using a language model to substitute for studying science. ChatGPT probably tells you how wonderful your "theory" is, but popular science articles abuse the word. A real theory is the strongest explanation science can ever have. You don't just "theorize" and then call it your theory. Real theories are the result of many scientists experimenting, analyzing, testing, reviewing over time, knowing one false result can disprove the whole thing, but thousands of positives will still never "prove" the explanation is correct. It will always be a theory, which is always just our best supported explanations. You also disparage philosophy by claiming this is a work of philosophy. It has none of the rigor philosophy uses. Philosophy and mathematics are the only places you'll find formal logic and "proofs", they don't exist in science outside those disciplines. You should be able to answer questions about your own ideas, especially the simple ones like, "What did you mean by this exactly?" If the AI knows your framework so well, as well as all the science information from the web, why can't it tell me what units you're using for psychological energy? Are you using joules, electron volts, calories, therms, foot-pounds? In atomic physics and computational chemistry, the Hartree is a unit of energy. Are you using that?

It's only a "cross" if you glue that extra cube on the bottom and get Jesus involved.

Strawmen and ad homs instead of just answering the questions? You don't seem to understand why units are important in relativity, or why I'm having trouble with converting talent to efficiency using the speed of light squared. I think you can see why I'm skeptical of using language AIs to speculate in science.

That's a strawman, unless you can point to where I claimed an explanation of mine is better than yours. I've seen it many times, yes. We had to make a rule about using ChatGPT to support scientific statements. It will give AN answer, and it may be wrong. In this thread however, the problem is more a lack of clarity. You're making a scientific speculation, and your language program is giving me vague hype about how good your idea is, and how firmly based in the foundations of science it is, and how you'll be using only the best data so your objectivity is maximized. And NONE OF THAT tells me specifically how you convert talent into efficiency by using the speed of light squared. It doesn't tell me the answer to what units you're using for psychological energy. Do you see where I'm coming from with this? ChatGPT is assuring me you know what you're both talking about, but it won't give me the clarity I'm asking for.

It does when they talk about science.

It's been almost 20 years. Do you have a working model?

You're using a language program that is designed to find answers, even wrong answers, to questions put to it, but it doesn't address any of my previous concerns, does it? It gives an answer when I ask how you plan on minimizing subjectivity, but it's not an answer that satisfies any scientific criteria. It simply assures me that you've thought of everything, and that the foundations of your idea are strong, and that you'll strive to maintain objectivity using unnamed resources, empirical studies, and cutting edge techniques. Nothing substantive, no real explanations, just marketing bullshit designed to deflect the questioner. How specifically are you converting talent into efficiency by using the speed of light squared? What units do you use for psychological energy?

Let me know when you want to talk. This is just offensive, imo.

That AI has a bad answer for everything, doesn't it?

The use of metaphor is more of a literary or psychological technique. It's not standard practice in science, and certainly not with well-defined terms like "energy". We would like you to persuade us that your ideas have merit based on their validity and clarity. You are speculating on physical properties, and trying to relate them to Special Relativity, so you aren't doing yourself any favors in misusing terms.

IQ tests are heavily flawed, since they were designed to find students who needed remedial help. And while you can measure how strong someone is, it becomes much more difficult to objectively judge how that strength relates to a talented ability. Am I more talented if I can lift 400#, or if I can hold a handstand on two fingers for three minutes?

You want the thread to be viewed correctly and feel there is information you need to add to achieve that. You admit you get wrong answers with your current process, and want to work to fix that. It's part of an ongoing project and you want the information to be fairly represented. Did I get this right? This seems more like something you need to work out personally. Unless you think someone specific can help you "talk it out", it doesn't seem like a great discussion topic (I closed that thread because you were the only one posting in it, which isn't really discussion). I would much rather see you figure out your methodology on your own and then start a brand new thread that doesn't have all the past failures attached to it. If there's something there that will teach people in the future, I think this gives you the best opportunity to reach them. Pages of "oops, that's not right" are not conducive to learning for many people.

The galaxy on your left, or left hand, in the simulated picture. Terms don't get much more layman than that.

What are you doing to reduce the subjective nature of many of your criteria? Surely "talent" isn't something we have the ability to objectively measure? Similarly, greed, violence, stability, and many of the others you mention depend on the person, so you need to remove as much subjectivity from your arguments as possible. Also, you talk about energies as if they are a thing instead of a property of a thing. Can I borrow a cup of energy? So you're applying a term that already has definitions in physics in a way that makes no sense. Are you eventually going to claim that talent creates gravity?

The Slump brand certainly is taking a hit. Vance will end up being a hot potato, a liability if you keep him and an even worse liability if Slump drops him for Haley. And it seems like his wounded/not wounded ear gave Slump no bump, like nobody cared.

You have multiple theories?! What does "placeholder label" mean to you, and what does it reconcile? I've heard it explained as an unknown like x, but we do know something about it. It has mass that accounts for missing matter in our galactic rotation calculations and is invisible and transparent to EM radiation. That's at least part of what "dark" means. I suppose the name may change when we can explain it more accurately, but maybe not. Yet some folks place a lot of importance in the name only being a "placeholder label".

It might help to read it all through. Part of the problem here is that you think "everything is alive and full of different species", but that doesn't apply to some of the things you list in your OP, like black holes, nucleus, particles, atoms, globes, energies, and materials (matter?). Lots of matter is inorganic, not living, and energy is a property of a thing instead of a thing itself. Some things aren't things at all, they're events, like lightning and black holes and fire. The various branches of science help give us our best supported explanations of phenomena specific to those branches. If you're looking for "how many different worlds exist in nature", the branches each deal with scale in different ways.

Yes. You should have given us enough in the OP to make comments and start a discussion. So far, I know you want us to see dark matter as time, and this involves believing in something. Nothing since has explained or persuaded anything about the topic. OK. Always make sure your sources aren't pushing some popular POV just to get attention. "We call it dark because it doesn't interact with light" sounds like a pop-sci treatment. exchemist used a more accurate phrase regarding the interaction: DM is invisible and transparent to EM radiation. Great! Um, you still haven't given us any speculation, other than it's complicated and it may involve believing that DM is time. What are you talking about?

Is this close to what you're looking for? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science

Seems like a complete waste of two seconds. It's actually a bit deeper than that. Please focus on this bit about seeing dark matter as time. Also, please do so without this element of belief, unless this belief is supportable. I believe in photosynthesis because I trust the explanation and have loads of evidence in support. If your belief is base on faith or wishful thinking, it's not science. I'm so grateful science doesn't work this way! Imagine if everyone who didn't understand an explanation could get everybody else to drop it too, claiming they're just wasting their time. We'd never progress at all. Thanks to all the tireless researchers who don't think rigor is a waste!

How much have you studied the divisions between the sciences that we already have? What is lacking about the way we classify them now? Why is science so incredibly accurate if we're missing these divisions?