Leaderboard

Nope. There are many definitions used in biological or sociological and common use terms, which have very different aspects. Such a generic definition as provided here would e.g. mean that smaller people form a race vs taller ones. Especially in humans the biological concept is problematic due to large gene flows between human populations. In common use it is an extremely mixed concepts that diverges vastly from how other subspecies are described. So no, it is not trivial at all.

! Moderator Note If everyone could please stick to the topic, it would be appreciated.

The fact that they even mention the MMR vaccine is a big red flag. It doesn't get better when you read the actual report "fewer children with ASD vs. non-ASD children use acetaminophen as a “first choice” compared to “never use”" Read that through a few times. Yep, they say that fewer autistic kids use acetaminophen and then the conclude that acetaminophen may be a cause of autism. They go on to say "We found significantly more children with ASD vs. non- ASD children change to the use of ibuprofen when acetaminophen is not effective at reducing fever (p = 0.033) and theorize this change in use is due to endocannabinoid system dysfunction. ". I have a different hypothesis. Parents of kids with ASD are frazzled. If their child- who is already hard to deal with- gets a fever and is thus even more challenging, they are more likely to try another drug than the less frazzled parents of kids without ASD. To follow that they say "We also found that children with ASD vs. non-ASD children are significantly more likely to show an increase in sociability when they have a fever (p = 0.037) " Well, just for a start, how objective is a measure of "an increase in sociability"? But even more tellingly- what they are saying is that kids who are - as a baseline- not very sociable are more likely to become more sociable than kids who were sociable to start with. I'm not sure that a journal called "autism open access" is an entirely unbiased source.

! Moderator Note Thread temporarily closed pending review.

On top of this being the most productive thread in religion since I came here, the proof is flawless...well almost flawless because its missing the GPB coolness ordering but that is always zero so it may be left out. Nevertheless, I think this is ready for the Newton Medal award.

I agree. This is a waste of time. And it is not fun or enlightening anymore, at least for me.

And, rather than pointing fingers for trivial matters, why not actually address something? And, rather than throwing out solutions simply because you're assuming things, why not ask how they can help? And, rather You know what, forget it. This debate goes nowhere. It's achieved nothing. It's done nothing. It'll never accomplish anything. It'll never mean anything. Nothing we say here matters, it'll be forgotten in a matter of days. Nothing we say here will ever make anything change. We can't come up with even a partial solution, it's all or nothing. My way or the high way. If the literal fate of the world laid single-handedly on us coming up with an agreement, we'd screw it up. Everyone would die. Poof. Gone. Forever. This isn't about trying to come up with a solution, it's about letting the other side know they're wrong. We could sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker then we could convince one man by using logic.

Interesting.... (I think ) I only have a couple of comments: Shouldn't GMP be Greatness Making Property? (sorry, am pedantically editing a long document) Do we know that there are GMPs that are inversely related? (I am not too convinced by moral goodness vs potence.) I assume it only takes one such pair to confirm your conclusion? And another thought: can we really have an objective ordering of GMPs? What one person/culture thinks is better might be considered worse by another. But, again, I guess you only need some objective GMPS, rather than all of them being objective.

Unless of course they get amplified via social media, politicized and publicized by the certain media outlets and shows. I mean, can you imagine that some actors could weaponize social media and put out coordinated fake stories out there to disrupt and destabilize societies? Too ridiculous to entertain that thought right? It would never work in highly educated societies, right? Haha ha... ha.

Hello Fred, this seems a reasonable question. The difference is in the molecules, not the fields. The guy in the first video said that "water molecules are polar". What he meant was electrically polarised, because water molecules are bent. I am not sure whether the flame deflection in the second video is due to oxygen or carbon dioxide molecules but both are straight and not electrically polarised. However both have a magnetic moment, though the oxygen one is much stronger.

When the Shah was still in power in the 70s, Iran was ( still is ) a rich country, and a favorite of the US. They were the only other country allowed to buy the Grumman F-14, the most advanced weapon system available at the time, able to track up to twenty targets, and achieve firing solutions for up to six, independent, beyond visual range targets with its loadout of Phoenix missiles. That would be equivalent to any country buying the F-22 today. It will not happen. But you know, even with the embargo after the revolution, and further embargos following ( for nuclear ambitions ), quite a few of those F-14, as well as F-5e, which have even been built as modified local versions, are still flying today. They built their own spares, and have an aerospace industry. I find it strange that they would source their airliners from the US. Why not Airbus with RR engines ? Or Ilyushins with Aviadvigatel engines ? Aeroflots planes aren't falling out of the sky. Or are they just trying to garner sympathy, by blaming their poor upkeep on the US led sanctions ?

Chimpanzees! You mean those dirty, smelly, violent, deceptive, confrontational animals were outperformed by a chimpanzee!

! Moderator Note That doesn't seem to have stopped you so far? Please stop hijacking this thread. If you want to post about your own hypotheses, do so elsewhere.

WTF does that mean? Please note, religion is equal to ethnic origin.

Of course not, do you deny, Lenin's atrocities is because of what Marx wrote or Hitlers because of Nietzsche. People write all sorts of things and those things can be distorted and used to support whatever evil plan you decide is reasonable. The Bible is just a book. Not all human injustice is due to politics but a lot is.

I haven't read either but I'd be happy to debate both, not because of a God, but despite it/he/she. For instance, "religion poisons everything" as a premise, is complete bollocks.

Stop blaming human injustice on religion, that's like blaming Marx for what Lenin did or blaming Nietzsche for what Hitler did.

God is Not needed: How Religion helps some people by Me

C'mon, let's not be snowflakes here. Sometimes thick skulls need to be told in no uncertain terms that solutions are right in front of them and have been there all along.

Well first of "Pavel", if that is indeed your actual real name. À "black hole" is supposedly caused by a star's gravitational collapse upon itself, Ha Ha Mr. Hawking! So basically, your ass is grass or another material if you even dare to get close, Ha Ha Mr. Hawking! And as for you "Strange", now I know that's your nickname, unless your Dad was Dr. Strange. Which I believe is very unlikely, because he is in the movies now. Read more fool! Sincerely, Philip K. Dick

Can you please explain to me how you got from "light doesn’t need a medium" to him saying that String theory is BS? Where's the connection here? What's Aether have to do with String Theory.

I don't know why you would think that. But it is an extension of quantum theory, which does not require an aether (in the sense that the OP meant it). If you want to use "aether" to mean spacetime (as others have) with any number of dimensions, then yes, string theory includes that aether. But that is not the luminiferous aether that has waves which are light waves. Which is what the OP was asking about (as he has confirmed). We know, from experiment, from Maxwell's equations, from quantum field theory and, yes, from string theory that there is no mechanical medium needed to carry the waves that make up light. The nearest thing to that medium, in classical theory, is the electromagnetic field. (But one could argue about whether such fields actually exist or not, or are just a mathematical convenience!) In string theory, as in quantum theory, light is not a wave; it is made up of photons, which are a particular configuration of a string. So there seems to be even less need of a medium (in the luminiferous aether sense). But, of course, those strings/quanta/whatever exist in N-dimensional space-time. And so, again, you can call that "aether" but it is not what the OP was asking about. Sorry to be so repetitive, but you seem to be misunderstanding what I am trying to say. Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't think I have given you any downvotes recently (not in this thread, anyway; and not for a long time).

I c But in string theory the end of strings are connected to membranes which consist of undetectable unfolded dimensions of space. These dimensions as in the aether are undetectable. Whilst string theory is not aether theory, why is one concept of space valid and the other not. Strings representing photons travel through space connected to the multidimensional membrane of space as does light in aether theory according to what you have written above. If space is assumed to be multidimensional and light waves pass through it operating in more than 4 dimensional space time, then wave particle duality is easier to understand as is polarization, and a whole load of other effects. Does the above clarify my line of thought. PS I am just trying to help the OP out a little, perhaps I might learn something new and have some fun at the same time.