Leaderboard

Ironically, under the title “time does not exist” it says “posted three hours ago”.

Note that you mention harassment while the quote was about sexual assault. In these cases women are ~10 times more frequently victims than men in most statistics. Notably, most males are victims of other males, perhaps for obvious reasons. Now harassment is quite a different issue, and the gender difference is lower (women experience it ca. 3x more often). A typical lifetime statistic in the USA shows something like 50% of women experience harassment and about 15% of men. The rate goes up for both genders in male-dominated environments (e.g. according to DOD data 2014 ~79% of women and 35% of men), again pointing to a leading role of men as perpetrators. I am not sure where you are going with this, though.

And yet movement and velocity themselves are undefined without time. How can one exist, but not the other?

The biggest and most objective Polish news channel -TVN24 owned by US „Srcripps Network Interactive” was fined yesterday 1.5mln PLN (~420K USD) by our National Broadcasting Council which is controlled by the rulling party and also largely by a religious oligarch Father Tadeusz Rydzyk. The fine might not look so painful untill you realize that it deals only with 2 days worth of news coverage during December 2016 circus that was on last year in the Polish parliament. According to the laws they recently made, they are capable of putting a single fine on a channel 100x that amount - 40mln USD. This is getting ridiculous, some people here are pissed, some are happy but most are apathetic. The EU already put fines on the Polish government for cutting down forests against our internal law and the EU law, more fines are coming for dismantling the constitutional tribunal - can be billions if they decide to stop the flow of EU funds to Poland. It really does feel like were flushing last 28 years of freedom and economic growth down the toilet. https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/12/276567.htm

The whole Hillary thing is just old. It's getting to the point where it can be added to the urban dictionary. "Hillary" can be used as a synonym to Godwin, where invoking the topic derails the discussion, hence failing the debate. By default. "Hillaried" be used as a term for preemptive character assassination, particularly one in a sexist, conspiratorial or malicious manner.

! Moderator Note You need to stop wasting other member's time with your lack of rigor in mainstream threads. Almost 20 posts worth of wtf. Pop-sci explanations are usually flawed, and you make matters worse with your strong assertions coupled with weak support. Try asking questions if you don't know something. If you respond to this modnote complaining in this thread, instead of stepping up your game, I'll be happy to split everything after the first few posts into the Trash. Report this post if you disagree with it.

Yes, my response to music is quite deep and I often play music in my head but only after hearing a piece many times unless the lead melody is simple. I know I don't hear it all but, I think, what you don't know, you don't miss, as long as it's a meaningful experience. I don't think normal-hearing people hear and process the same way anyway. We all hear what we want to hear and discard the rest. Can you hear the notes on the piano and can you hear the difference in pitch as you run across the keys? Concerning your original question about research into it, it seems to be rather scarce and not of high quality according to this following metastudy paper on the causes, so I imagine research on your specific question will be very hard to find. If you want to read the full paper click the link at the end of my quote. This is a 2013 paper, so it''s quite recent.

Except, this is the precise opposite of the actual stance I've been putting forth. The hardware of the brain is axons and dendrites and myelin sheathing and all of the intermediate parts like sodium potassium channels and gates, etc. I tried to suggest we're closer to agreeing on this than you're making it out to be. This point seems reinforced by your comments above about hardware and software, but instead you said that, "No, one of us has to be wrong." Apologies, but you're not making sense.

I'm guessing you're about 25...

Was your teddy bear real or imaginary? Mine was both...

Time zones are a human-inflicted effect. A convenience driven by commerce. Science (and other endeavors) use UTC, which is common to the whole earth. Time everywhere on the geoid is the same. We pretend the earth is an inertial frame, which has some ramifications. When you want to compare time in various places you need to take into account relativistic effects. Signals sent around the earth's equator, for example, gain or lose a little more than 200 ns, owing to the earth's rotation, from the Sagnac effect.

! Moderator Note Well, try to be a bit clearer here at SFN. Chances are you inadequately supported an argument against the mainstream definition of spacetime, and that's going to put you in hot water with physicists who need a temporal dimension so the math works out right. When people get meaner and meaner, don't assume it's just them. You're trying to redefine something that already has specific meanings and applications, so don't be so surprised that you get pushback. I removed the link from the title since that looks like advertising, and I moved the thread from Science News to Classical Physics until you establish a discussion. If you get your mainstream explanations, it can stay here, but if you decide to paddle off mainstream science, we'll move it to Speculations. Enjoy and welcome. Personally, I'm put off by Barbour's first cheap, pop-sci argument, that since you can't hold time in your hands it must not exist. Can you hold any of the spatial dimensions in your hand? I'll finish the article but it doesn't make a good first impression.

I used to hire off-duty Denver cops during Christmas to wander around an urban mall area to cut down on shoplifting, and I learned how tightly-knit the legal system is. The police and the prosecutors need to be tight to make sure they get it all right and put the bad guys away. They protect each other from scrutiny because they want to be effective at their jobs, and don't always see sexual assault as a crime with a victim. The straw for me was all the stories from the time of Moore's alleged assaults, and how all the cops knew to keep ol' Roy away from the high school girls. It was common knowledge at the time he was 30 that he dated high school girls. And the topper for me was how his wife resorted to posting fake news to deflect from the accusations. Moore wants to stay in the game with a bad hand, and that means he's bluffing. He comes from the Trump mold of power and privilege, and he's just as used to lying as Trump is.

This seems like whataboutism. The issue is that there is a large percentage of men who assume they have a right to sexual advances on women they don't have sexual relationships with. What you're suggesting seems like saying it's OK to do that since there are not an insignificant number of women who do it too. Seriously, whatever your experiences, men have been trying to force women into sex against their will, and assume privileges that were never offered since we started writing history. How many of those histories detail a man being forced against his will? Remember, there are no bad words for a man who likes sex, but I don't have time to write down all the awful words we have for lusty women. Sorry about this, but men in general are always going to be the culprits in this, whether by direct action or by tacit inaction.

Worldwide, 76 % of women are targeted for physical and sexual violence in their life time,at least once. Up to 50% of sexual assaults are committed against girls under 16. In USA 83% of girls aged 12-16 experienced sexual harrasment in schools, in Europe 50% of women experienced unwanted advances or sexual harrasment at work. No need to be a genius to realise that all the men seem as powerful for a 16 years old girl who just started this life long fight for her rights, body and safety. Even he is not rich and she is not a glamorous beauty. Just normal people living next door to yours. Cause in 2 out of 3 cases these men are familiar to that girls. It is a men's world. 76% of women suffered = 76% of men caused it, at least once. And yes, i experienced all of the things am talking about. And yes, statistically proved some of the men registered at this site harmed women and/or made a harassment

Given that there a many different hypotheses and speculations about the origin (or otherwise) of the universe made by very brilliant people, I don't know how you can narrow it down to just two. I think you mean "neither of which make sense". You haven't presented a logical argument. Nope. I am merely stating that (1) your belief that is impossible may be incorrect and (2) the universe may not have come from nothing. It is up to you to demonstrate that the universe must have come from nothing and that it is impossible. So far, all we have is your personal incredulity / belief. I guess you didn't understand what it says. The matter is there now. It wasn't there when there was zero energy before the universe was created. Neither was the negative energy that cancels it out. So the hypothesis starts with nothing. From that it creates equal and opposite positive (matter and energy) and negative (potential energy) parts. You appear to be dismissing it for no valid reason. They may or they may not. To assume they won't (because it would conflict with your beliefs?) is the height of anti-science.

Does "numb and number" get me an additional curtsey? (I have already ceded the proposition btw)

No. Instead say, "Want quick-read threads? Vote YES!" l personally dislike the idea. Forcing science discussions to be short goes against the nuanced and layered information structure of most explanations of natural phenomena. This is exactly why pop-sci articles cause as much trouble as they do to spur interest in the sciences. An explanation or argument should take as long as it takes. I think we already have a Quick Question thread for simple answers. I'm not sure what the objective is for a whole subforum of it, but if it attracts those who can't be bothered to read details, it sounds like it will mostly be good for dragging our reputation down as a serious science discussion site.

But certainly they have negative consequences. 1) fixed levels of CO2 and CH4 and other global warming gases in atmosphere, will decrease pressure on moving to renewable energy sources. Lobbyist will persuade governments to continue using coal, oil & gas (they are getting paycheck for this task after all), and global warming will be again, but delayed one or couple hundred years later, again. 2) if "average human" (only 16-20% of humans live in western countries, only percent of them with decent education) will be taken to Mars, without any additional requests (books, computers, access to knowledge, communication, equipment, astronaut suits, tools, etc. etc.) and leaved there in the box.. Such average human (knowing nothing about science, with really poor general knowledge), will be locked there unable to explore Mars, unable to transform planet by his/her own hands any further without knowledge, equipment and tools.. And you will have soon overpopulation on the Mars.. 3) lack of diseases on the Earth ("of human body caused by microorganisms") = overpopulation at an accelerated rate..

None, thank you alien friend. We'll never learn for ourselves otherwise. How about comparing notes on maths and art?

Do you have any objective evidence to support this claim? Or can we disregard it, just like your other guesses.

That’s what I said: meaningless.

What have you found? And what evidence do you have? You know what, I don't really care because you're obviously a crackpot and if you really did have the answer, you'd post a paper with the relevant data/evidence; rather than talk bollox and challenge an obvious layman such as myself. No disrespect to Strange and his attempt to correct your BS.

After I could recognize intelligence I became obsessed with it and at 27 and a half I discovered the intelligence cycle. My brother could recognize it at 29 and a half, he has a lower intelligence than me.

Oh, so it is a big huge massive ball of solid Iron Right next to a SMBH, okay Strange, I would have never guessed.

The issue of momentum is correct. Concerning the use of a vapor chamber I am surprised you have never heard of it. This is most definitely also a fundamental philosophical issue.

Yep. You don't get it. All the theories of where the universe come from fall into the two categories. Which I have told you. Actually they all fall into one category: The idea that the universe has always existed. There is no one speculating about something coming from nothing. I don't know what YOU think the word logical means but it isn't the meaning every one else has. Sense and logic are the same. You are coming from the view that if it happens it is logical even if it goes against science and common sense. This is child logic. With an agenda. You cannot face the facts so you use semantics to try and win back the argument. All you are doing is demonstrating your fear. I have demonstrated that the universe came from nothing by the process of elimination. Again you say nothing of any substance. You are indulging in flim flam. just as most scientists do when they encounter things they cannot understand. >>The matter is there now. It wasn't there when there was zero energy before the universe was created. Neither was the negative energy that cancels it out. So the hypothesis starts with nothing. From that it creates equal and opposite positive (matter and energy) and negative (potential energy) parts. Meaningless. If I can scratch SOME logic from this nonsensical statement you are saying nothing became zero energy? This is still something coming from nothing. Which is impossible and yet happened. >>They may or they may not. To assume they won't (because it would conflict with your beliefs?) is the height of anti-science. If you truly understood what I am saying, which you clearly don't(won't?) then you would know I am right. Again you have failed to understand the problem. All the evidence is on this thread. There are only two options of where the universe came from. Strange is so without understanding that she/he thinks there are more. She does not get that all the theories fall into two ideas. But what can I expect from an internet forum. I was deluded in thinking that you guys would be actual scientists. HAH! Boy was I wrong. AGAIN, there are only two ways the universe could come about. Either from nothing or it always existed. If you do not agree with this then PLEASE tell me the third option because nobody else has come up with one. There isn't one. We have eliminated the latter option. So therefore the universe came from nothing. FACT. But ignore all I've said and talk BS. Yes, I get it. You don't understand what I'm saying.

There is an age at which intelligence can be recognized. It depends on the person's intelligence. The ones that are intelligent can recognize it at about 18 yo and the ones that are less at about 35 - 40 yo old and even more.