Leaderboard

Just did not want to let this pass without a party (Dutch treat...). You are all invited at the lakeside! (Just Click on the picture to see it full size.) Thank you to all from who I learned a lot, and also thank you all who understand less than I do about certain subjects, but force me me to rethink, or make my viewpoint clearer, or force me to read some book or article (again). I noticed that much of what I read is influenced by topics here in these fora. And thanks to those who make this forum possible, moderators, administrators, sponsors, etc. Up for the next 1000!

Your right I spelt it wrong I had to look up an email from 2016. I should have copied and pasted. I'm glad to see that he is still on SFN he seemed worried then that he might not be. Now I'm worried about me. I tend to become aggressively competitive on occasion in discussion. I enjoy it. What bothers me is the effect it has on other people. I don't realize untill it is too late that that I have angered them. During a discussion of differences I do not exactly want them on their best game, but I don't want them angry either, so when I realize it has reached that point. I withdraw. I like point and counter point, and apparently I was too aggressive. When a person responds only with I am trying to pick a fight. Especially when all I did was respond to what I thought was an intentional insult with humor. So, into my shell I ran. I want to apologize to, and thank those who encouraged me. My head is clearing, I don't really want out. I may have mentioned before that SFN is is to me a weakness that I enjoy. Thank you ...

It's a really good thing you discovered this before you wasted a lot of time here! Thanks for stopping by, and good luck elsewhere.

Some call them "spurious reasons", others call them "the rules you agreed to when you joined".

OK. Cheers.

No, I don't think so. We have, for example, demonstrations that Newtonian gravity is a 1/r^2 force, that do not depends on measuring the force at different distances and confirming we get the correct plot. Orbits working the way they do, for example. And while you are clamoring for experimental evidence, you have failed to show how QM fails owing to this alleged problem. Meanwhile, I can put a cloud of atoms into a superposition of two states, which QM says is a wave function that is a linear combination of the two eigenvectors with equal amplitudes, and then measure the population in each state, and find they are equal, as part of an experiment. How does that work, if Born's rule is incorrect? Pretty interesting that it has gotten to be that old if one of the critical parts is wrong.

You are only limited to five posts on your first day here. You can post as you wish now.

Banning is for rule-breakers. Is the site taking up too much of your time, and you want to do something else? His name is Robittybob1, so that's why your search came up empty. He posted in this thread a few weeks ago:

FFS not you again with your twisted pseudo science fueled by deeply routed religious homophobia. @nevim, please google the original poster.

No scientific evidence points to any creator. That claim is totally unscientific and ignorant to make. We do though have plenty of evidence to show that spacetime/universe evolved from t+10-43 seconds up to the present time, plus the fact that the only scientific answer to life is Abiogenesis, either Earth based or via Panspermia.

I really like reading your posts/threads/questions and contributions. You come across as a nice, deep guy. Personally, I think maybe your humour was mistook for an attack earlier. Don’t leave. Please.

If by any chance, this change of heart is due to the ongoing discussion in the Political forum, I hope you reconsider. People tend to get very passionate about their opinions, and refuse to even acknowledge that other points of view may exist. I have done it myself, but I make the attempt to consider other, even unsavory, viewpoints. And sometimes it can be a minefield to navigate. I find your questions, and your desire to learn, in the Physics forums refreshing. A lot of them have helped me learn new things also. Looking forward to many more of them.

I think you’re raising a good point. Unless I’m blind to some deep ignorance, you’re clearly referring to white people here, right? The entitlement you reference is centuries old, and the persistence of white supremacy is a direct reason we are having this discussion at all.

Intelligent Design is a brilliant marketing concept developed as a back door method of getting creationism into school science curricula in the USA. This was clearly and publicly demonstrated in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case over a decade ago. Michael Behe's book is part of that attempt to bamboozle the public. A far better read for "the scientist looking at science for answers" in this field would be something like Kenneth Brown's "Only a Theory" which systematically dismantles the nonsense of Intelligent Design. Darwin formulated his ideas over a century and a half ago - there are bound to be errors and ovesights in his work. Breaking news, in the century and a half since he published his works tens of thousands of scientists have conducted research that has developed his remarkable insight into arguably the most solidly established theory in science. That said, I would be interested to know which particular ideas of his you consider to be "bad science". Perhaps I could then either agree with you that those ideas are outmoded, or show how you have misinterpreted their intent from the few excerpts you have read. (Warning: creationists routinely quote Darwin out of context in order to suggest he claimed something that supports their argument. When such excerpts are read in context their assertions are contradicted.) Note to moderators - I'm not sure if we are even meant to give breathing space to pseudoscientific nonsense by taking the time to denounce it. Please remove this post if it is counter to forum policies.

**cough** You uh, spelled singularity wrong.

! Moderator Note Further discussion about bigotry is off-topic for this thread and has been split off to the trash. Please stay on-topic.

Nonsense. The threads I saw had nothing to do with "prejudice". They were trying to establish group differences. Ironically it's evidence free equality ideas that are "prejudice" and "bigotry". Those words have meanings, they don't mean "departure from racial Marxism". They mean believing things without evidence. The hilarious part is that if you honestly applied your rules you would need to ban yourselves.

DavidWebb has been banned as a sockpuppet of Jason Bourne InSe, Bean_Spiller and Pock Suppet

Vexen has been suspended for a combination of soapboxing and spamming. Far too many threads opened up with no further participation (and when participation is there, it is often of the category "tell me more"), and includes threads that are topics easily Googled. This is a discussion forum.

The key to longevity is represented by the virtues one develops/attains (purity, compassion, nobleness). Sexual energy can only be sublimated/transmuted by the higher emotions originating from the superconscious mind (higher self). Celibacy is one extreme. Full sexual continence is another (and even advanced monks/yogi have nocturnal ejaculations unless they use very advanced techniques such as Virya Mudra (inserting a tube through the urethra, starting at the age of 14, to the verumontanum area in order to activate the seminal sphincter; for the Vamacari yogi), or Kevala Pranayam a dangerous and extremely difficult method attained by only very few). Uddhiyana Bandha and Oli Mudras (the Sahajoli Mudrasana introduced by Gitananda) can only help so much, for full continence one needs those extremely advanced techniques which cannot be practiced by most yogi. Therefore, one should ejaculate rarely (perhaps once every few months), while sublimating all the while the sexual energy (generative force) to the higher self. Qi/chi/prana is the energy related to the petals of a chakra. Gong/virtues/higher emotions are related to the geometrical symbol of a chakra, a much higher function.

Could this also happen to humans? Sci Rep. 2019 Mar 18;9(1):4837. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-41258-2. Prenatal Allergen Exposure Perturbs Sexual Differentiation and Programs Lifelong Changes in Adult Social and Sexual Behavior. Lenz KM1,2,3, Pickett LA4,5, Wright CL4,5, Galan A6, McCarthy MM4,5. Author information Abstract Sexual differentiation is the early life process by which the brain is prepared for male or female typical behaviors, and is directed by sex chromosomes, hormones and early life experiences. We have recently found that innate immune cells residing in the brain, including microglia and mast cells, are more numerous in the male than female rat brain. Neuroimmune cells are also key participants in the sexual differentiation process, specifically organizing the synaptic development of the preoptic area and leading to male-typical sexualbehavior in adulthood. Mast cells are known for their roles in allergic responses, thus in this study we sought to determine if exposure to an allergic response of the pregnant female in utero would alter the sexual differentiation of the preoptic area of offspring and resulting sociosexual behavior in later life. Pregnant rats were sensitized to ovalbumin (OVA), bred, and challenged intranasally with OVA on gestational day 15, which produced robust allergic inflammation, as measured by elevated immunoglobulin E. Offspring of these challenged mother rats were assessed relative to control rats in the early neonatal period for mast cell and microglia activation within their brains, downstream dendritic spine patterning on POA neurons, or grown to adulthood to assess behavior and dendritic spines. In utero exposure to allergic inflammation increased mast cell and microglia activation in the neonatal brain, and led to masculinization of dendritic spine density in the female POA. In adulthood, OVA-exposed females showed an increase in male-typical mounting behavior relative to control females. In contrast, OVA-exposed males showed evidence of dysmasculinization, including reduced microglia activation, reduced neonatal dendritic spine density, decreased male-typical copulatory behavior, and decreased olfactory preference for female-typical cues. Together these studies show that early life allergic events may contribute to natural variations in both male and female sexual behavior, potentially via underlying effects on brain-resident mast cells.

Am I allowed to close my account or do I just avoid the site?

I notice any threads about how races are not exactly equal get closed by swansont for spurious reasons like "bigotry".

No it was completely on topic.

Where in the rules does it say "departure from strict racial-Marxism in human biology will be labelled "bigotry" and discussion closed"? I noticed the scientific refutation was absent, so I can understand why name-calling has to be used as a "reason". But let's not pretend there's any science about that.

Your rules are fake. You claim to oppose "prejudice" and "bigotry". And then enforce racial-Marxism under those terms, which don't apply.

Well the entire postmodern (anti-white Communist) academic establishment seems to constantly want to bring up "white people are to blame for black failure" as a topic, and play it 24/7 on their bought media. So it's hardly surprising people react to that.