reliv3

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.

This argument is more of a philosophical argument than a scientific one. It reminds me of the classic "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, then does it make a sound?". The purpose of this statement is to question whether the observer is a requirement for something to be real.

Ultimately, I think science doesn't have a solid answer to this question. Quantum mechanics might suggest the answer to be "no", since matter exists as a probability function until something measures (observes) it. This would suggest that a lack of observer would leave matter in an exotic state which would not allow such a definite process as falling in the woods. On the other hand, general relativity would suggest that the tree would make a sound because all matter affects the spacetime continuum whether an observer is there or not. This would suggest that the tree's existence is independent from an observer. The tree's matter will bend spacetime and will still be subjected to the effects of existing within a curved spacetime geometry. Therefore, the tree would exist and fall resulting in a sound.

Of course, the big issue in science right now is that we have failed to disprove both quantum mechanics and general relativity; but these two primary theories of science are incompatible with eachother. Ultimately, this means that this question regarding physicalism is presently unanswerable by science.

You truly believe the semantics of the English language disproves the point? English and the way it defines "I" is greatly affected by things seperate from biological definitions (one being the spiritual concept of the "soul")

Also, there did exist languages in other cultures that did not have the same concept of "I" as the English language. Your counter-argument is very weak.