Leaderboard

You need to define start. It's a vague term, that can mean lots of things. But without you defining it, this thread is a joke. When does a loaf of bread "start" ? Making it doesn't start it. It merely brings the ingredients together in a certain form. I asked you earlier to name something that had a start but you didn't reply.

I love how one or two Democrats taken out of context result in everyone’s parties getting in a twist, yet not a peep about years of screaming lock her up and saying people,should be carried out on stretchers or Obama tarred and feathered. Myopia, hypocrisy, who cares? Same result.

While research is well underway looking at role of the microbiome I urge caution of overinterpretation. The connection is still being examined and the link to complex traits such as behavior is still far off from being figured out. There are generally two basic issues with the question in OP. The first is we do not really understand the biological basis of the mentioned conditions. The second is that we also only have a rough understanding of dietary effects in general. Even basic things such as impact of diets on body weight and fat distribution is often not clearly understood (notwithstanding the confidence with which dietary recommendations are made). Thus, drawing a direct line between condition at diet, is simply not possible with the level of current knowledge. As a reference, studies with clearly toxic compounds such as lead took a long while to correlate it with neurological issues in populations (due to lead paint, for example). And even there it is difficult to quantify precisely the impact.

So when you get rid of the flim flam of the first premise, you end up with the ludicrous argument that "nothing can come from nothing" but GOD can make that same thing happen because he's wonderful. Just say the magic word "GOD" and it can happen. But without the magic word, it can not. No mention of HOW god conjures something from nothing. And no reasons's given why if he can do it, why can't it just happen? If it's possible, it's possible. If it's not possible, it's not. What this argument boils down to, is "it's impossible, but god can do it, and that proves that god did it."

Hang on. You said: So if "base reality" (whatever that means) always existed then it didn't have a start and therefore it can't exist. You don't seem to know what "logic" means. How can it be permanent and finite. That makes no sense. You might as well say it is both big and small. This is just a series of assertions with no evidence. It has no place on a science forum.

It's a thing in everyday speech. In reality, it's an event. It's a human illusion, that these events seem to be "things". We set the boundaries, timewise and spacewise, in our heads. It's a bit like saying that a crowd is a "thing".

So the car doesn't exist until the final item (lets say the badge) is attached? So a car complete with wheels, engine, seats, doors windows, bodywork etc. is not a car because it doesn't have the badge on the front. I think you have successfully demonstrated how stupid your argument is.

As a matter of interest (how) can things which don't exist have a start?

There are many philosophical takes on time including "time is an illusion" I prefer to stick to my simple definition that time is just that which stops everything from happening together It is also a flexible entity that depends on one's frame of reference, although time will always seem to pass at 1 second per second for everyone within his or her own frame of reference. It also forms the four dimensional spacetime within which it is possible to locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. Perhaps the question that needs to be asked is whether time is fundamental or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVINOl0Ctfk Spacetime is a real concept as is space and time, albeit non physical. What really amazes me is that once again, we have a newbie popping in to claim with utmost certainty, that which is mostly a philosophical take on a debatable matter. Time is real.....time is non absolute....Time travel at least to the future is achievable and in line with GR. Time travel to the past is another matter and probably not possible. There now is some reasonable certainty for you to ponder! PS: And of course nothing has been disproven.

I don't have Cable TV. Rather I watch just watch Netflix and Amazon. The News I consume is all through reading online. So I miss a lot of the going popular political outrage and punditry associated with cable news. One of your links mentioned Eric Holder and I didn't understand the context because I don't follow cable news. Seems people have been taking a statement he made about kicking those who go low way out of context and attempting to claim Holder advocated violence. In the same speech where Holder made the kick'em comment he clarified saying "When I say we kick them, I don't mean we do anything inappropriate, we don't do anything illegal, but we have to be tough and we have to fight, and we have to fight for the very things that John Lewis, Martin Luther King, Whitney Young – you know, all those folks gave to us.” It seems you might be allowing dishonest media pundits to influence your perception a bit. Just as I reference civil rights leaders in my early response so too did Eric Holder in his remarks. I recommend you find a full version of the speech and watch it for yourself. I didn't link one because all the ones I found included various bit of commentary. It would be best for you to read or see the comments in full for yourself. Perhaps then you will give the belief you have about Democratic mobs some more thought.

Why do people immediately claim some incumbent theory/model is wrong when they come across some obscure text/claim on the Internet? There is an underlying reason...A-G-E-N-D-A If it turns out that DM is wrong, then it will be science that discovers it...not some obscure random claim on the web. Science can and do make errors and false claims at time, but again, if and when that happens, it is always science that is self correcting, and again, certainly not some random claim on the web. eg: The BICEP2 experiment claimed to have discovered gravitational waves. The claim was made prematurely and later shown that the experiment was actually due to dust contamination. [Gravitational waves were of course discovered some time later by aLIGO] Another was a claim that the speed of light, "c" had been seemingly exceeded in some other remote experiment. Later data was forthcoming showing that this was an anomalous reading caused by a loose wire or something similar. Just about any fact and or incident in history is probably contradicted on the web by conspiracy nuts, or some other fanatical breed of fools that would like to attempt to refute known facts for their own benefit and satisfaction with regards to some agenda or personal belief. DM of course as Strange has said is the best theory we have, and while being a "fudge factor" when first proposed, is now fairly well supported with many observed phenomena supporting the concept, the bullet cluster observation being the most notable.

This is true. However, I'm pretty certain that if I just kept posting what I believed and never addressed what others were saying back to me, it'd be a rather one-sided discussion. Just a thought though. This is terrible advice. You're suppressing rape victims from coming forward. Don't listen to him @koti . Take this to the police and have this evil monsterous bigoted piece of shit woman thrown in prison for the rest of her life. I mean, I have no evidence she did it, but it's perfectly fair these days to make our decision prior to the evidence being presented. Because obviously, it's so much easier for us to change our mind after it's been made rather than just waiting until we have evidence to decide.

How is it determined? Public opinion? Say it enough and you start to believe it? Just ask anyone?

I do respect you enough, however, you have a bad habit of only quoting one part of my post and seemingly ignoring the rest. I mean, take my post about the fears. You quoted one part about me saying somethings wrong if she believes all her fears. Address the fears that I brought to question and I can change my mind. That's how debate works. You address each of my arguments and claims, and I address each of yours. That way we're not talking past each other.

Oh yeah, I forgot. Three people came forward saying he was lying about his drinking habits. He's lying. So are the 65 other people who came forward to say he was telling the truth.

You know you have lost when you cite the Daily Mail as a source.

At this stage it appears now he has played every card in the deck....I saw the victim card yesterday, and now its the joker. I suppose someone that needs to add some semblance of credence to his nonsense, gets quite desperate.

You can, and they do, but it's not very economic. Rechargeable batteries are either very expensive or not very efficient. Or a bit of both. Lead Acid batteries, like in a car, can last a long time. But that's in a car, where they get very little use, and are kept fully charged all the time. If you use them for power, you have to keep charging them up, and running them down. They don't last very long, once you start using them like that. Also, you don't get the same energy out that you put in. They waste a lot, and you lose more energy transforming the current backwards and forwards to AC/DC high voltage/low etc. So it can be a useful option, but only where the alternative is expensive.

In engineering, nobody cares about rigorous definitions. What matters is whether it works, not whether someone wants to call some trivially useless cases "finite" or not.

You beat me to it. It just occurred to me how physicists like to say "neutrinoes have finite mass" to mean that they have positive rest mass. Some particle has "finite radius" meaning positive radius. And so on. It is almost like mass ought to be measured in 1/kg and sizes of things in 1/m. Similarly to how the charge of an electron really should be positive instead of negative, given the direction in which electricity actually flows. But as opposed to mathematics, where things intrinsically are allowed to become infinite, that is not usually so in physics. In mathematics, "finite" rightly means the opposite of "infinite", and the dichotomy does not apply to physics, because then it is just a matter of choice of units.

No offense taken. Physicists have been known to use math in a way that drives mathematicians crazier than they already are.

For making of fragrance which volatile oil is unique as base oil?

I am wondering how many of you who thumbs down my answers wanna sort this outside after a couple beers and see where you end up after.

Phi for all is totally right of course and reg couldn't be more wrong. The evidence supporting the fact that not only is science questioned everyday it also is in constant change as new evidence comes to light. Reg and others of that opinion need to realise that all of mainstream science was at one time also being questioned and not always in the mainstream.

Most people do come to science forums to learn. Apparently you are one of the exceptions. Let me straighten you out once again, no Newtonian was never deemed to be true, and as you have been told before, the truth or reality is not the object of the scientific discipline. Newtonian was though correct within its zone of applicability. GR of course gave us a wider more encompassing zone of applicability, and gave the same answers as Newtonian albeit with far more accuracy. It's your own misrepresention that is in question and your misinterpretation of what science is all about and the scientific method. Again the theory of the evolution of life is as close to certainty as we could hope> If of course you have any evidence to the contrary, I suggest you table it. But you won't and you havn't. "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself". Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956).

I suggest you stop being so overly pretentious and obtuse. Again scientific theories are never meant to find any supposed truth or reality that keeps bugging you. And that includes Newtonian. Again Newtonian is a correct [not true] theory when applied with its zones of applicability.....the same with the more accurate GR This has all been explained to you by more knowledgable people then either you or I. Now I suggest you stop playing games and come up with whatever alternative to the theory of evolution you have faith in....It certainly will not be a scientific theory, I will bet on that!

Whatever way you look at it the Church is a bogus operation, its founded on claims which simply are not true. Over centuries it has shimmy shammied, to try and keep itself credible, but its fundamental ideas are false. The fact that many people hold these ideas in earnest (and maybe are otherwise nice people) does not change the fact that it is built on the idea that are false. When we begin to realise these ideas are ridiculous or worse, the Church sidesteps the issue. Have you noticed, for example, how it "forgets" to remind the faithful that... Leviticus 20:13 “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense

Are you serious? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/10/hillary-clintons-approval-incivility-democrats-overreach-conundrum/?utm_term=.e7bc51223917 https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-editors/hillary-clinton-attacks-republicans-defends-incivility What do you think Clinton is defending? She at least recognizes that it exists. Do you not? Where can a moderate go to vote in the upcoming election? What can be considered a win for anything that is not extreme? Who is going to lead a return to respectful political discourse?

Did you actually check out the links? There are a number of examples that are not from Clinton. She is defending fellow Democrats calling for uncivil behaviour, and the links include a number of examples. (which you requested) Are you seriously unaware there is a concern with the current political discourse? Do you believe it is only Trump, or only the Republicans? Your tendency to confirmation bias is pretty consistent, so should I take you at your word that you are serious, and never really able to see both sides? Apologies if I am wrong, but I believe you are much smarter than that, but being disingenuous. When will we see a return to mutual respect in American politics? https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/26/john-mccain-death-barack-obama-reaction-nr-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/mccain-bashing-trump/

No there is no problem with this integers, reals, complex numbers; they all behave consistently under the basic mathematical operators (+ - * /) and they all have mirrors in nature. How can the cardinality of an infinite set be anything other than magical? Well because Actual Infinity was included in set theory because of religious rather than logical reasons. Cantor and Co believed God was actually infinite and mathematics was made to reflect this; much to its detriment IMO.

Yes, the temporal 'start' of objects is typically a time window (assembly using the car example) rather than a specific moment of time, but that time window still qualifies as a temporal start...