reliv3

Newtons 3rd law states all forces come in pairs which act equally and in opposite directions. The magnet exerts a forward force on the truck and the truck exerts an equal force backwards on the magnet. Because the magnet is physically attached to the truck, there is no way for this to produce a non-zero net force on the system we are trying to move; so the truck will not accelerate.

This is similar to sitting on an office chair with your feet up and trying to push yourself forward by pushing on the back of the chair with your hands. Doesn't matter how hard you push, the chair will not want to accelerate.

Paracelsus has famously claimed, the dose makes the poison. His point is basically, everything is potentially a poison. One can possibly get Oxygen or water poisoning even though both substances are vital for our survival.

My general point is that people's arguments regarding how star wars simplifies space flight into pseudo-atmospheric flight mechanics is generally correct. It's not an awful thing though. Space is so foreign to almost everyone on Earth that trying to model realistic outcomes in the movie would probably not make sense to most viewers; so it's being greatly simplified in order to cause less cognitive dissonance to the viewers.

The physics you presented is very off.

First, 9.8 m/s/s is the acceleration of things that fall near Earth's surface, so the Earth is not pulling the moon with that acceleration, it's far less. A basic model predicts the moons acceleration to be GM/r^2 where G is the universal gravitational constant, M is the Earth's mass, and r is the distance between the Earth's and Moon's centers of mass.

Second, you have presented a misconception that "orbiting" does not include hovering over the same position relative to a point on a planet. The thing is the planet is not still, it is both spinning and translating. This means in order for the big ship to view the planet as not moving, it also needs to be orbiting around the planet at the same speed that the planet is spinning while translating at the same speed as the planet.

That you have an impressive talent in accumulating downvotes 😬

The goal is to make personal computing hardware so expensive that the average person cannot afford to do that. 😬

Millions of newborns are forced into various religions without their consent. Basing your argument off of consent only is kinda a wash argument unless your willing to fight all the other things parents do to their children without their consent.

College: You get as much as you put in to it.

If one plans on going to college to check a box by getting a bachelor's, degree, then that person should probably spend their time and money doing something else.

For someone who sees college as an opportunity to stress their ability to learn at levels much higher than what High School or even Trade School may do, then it will do wonderful things for you. The most useful skill academia teaches is the ability to learn complex ideas through abstraction.

As someone who has learned how to create a complex AI system with both long and short term memory, one thing I learned is that AI cannot teach AI. I apply my ability to learn by extending it to my AI agent to help it learn new patterns.

I doubt you know that. Modeling matter and photons as a non-deterministic wave function is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. If this has been debunked, then quantum mechanics would have been debunked.

The bottom line here is you are incorrect. The question is whether you're willing to update your viewpoint or not. But that's for you to decide.

I think this might be where my role ends as the random internet guy trying to help you realize the error in being overly confident about a concept you clearly know little about.

Not trying to be rude or anything; but It's curious that you can claim certainty about a complex element of quantum mechanics; yet admit to not being able to model the basic phenomenon of light traveling through a dual slit.

Curious, how do you explain the dual slit phenomenon?

Science isn't actually "physicalist". In fact one major theory in science, Quantum Mechanics, would probably challenge physicalism since quantum suggests that there will always be unknowable physical quantities regarding any given particle of matter. It also suggests that particles of matter (and light) must interact with an observer in order to exist in a state where some physical quantities can be known; else these particles exist only in an exotic state of indefinite probalistic fluctuations.

I must say though, even though quantum challenges physicalism, quantum's model of the universe truly rejects the possibility of any omniscient entity. Omniscience requires the ability to know everything about the universe and quantum suggests that this is in fact impossible; therefore a truly omniscient god would be impossible. It was for this reason that god-fearing Albert Einstein rejected quantum mechanics up until his death bed.