Leaderboard

It's like you just ignore the real reasons why people have a problem with the equations and ideas you posted here. Yet you keep saying it is just because you no formal training or use the wrong terminology. If that makes you feel better, you do you, but it just seems so not useful for you. Why not pop the bubble you are living in, use your 160 IQ and go learn some basic physics, in what way would this hurt you? It will only make you more knowledgeable and probably gives you a lot clearer ideas... -Dagl

https://www.businessinsider.com/black-hole-how-big-largest-universe-2019-5?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral

Bez... I am not responding here because I can relate to your selected topic, but I am here because I can relate to how you are feeling. I live on the North Yorkshire moors in England. I keep a few chickens to supply eggs for breakfast, and have a stockpile of wood next to my house. So I am in fact the real McCoy (bumpkin). This is a "real" science site, I am a non-academic yet I joined because similarly to you I believed I had a hypothesis based on observation. I shall not go into details of this, but the point is that sometimes these Ideas that we hold in our minds for sometimes many years (as noted), without any kind of conduits in life to express them, can be detrimental to your cause in circumstances like the one you find yourself in here. You are hesitant in your decision to post your topic in the first place, and then you get that OH! feeling because somebody has bothered to respond to you... am I correct ?. The problem then is that you cannot wait to get this stuff out of your head and onto the screen. I have been in this situation before, and for the most part knew what to expect. But I too did not get my idea across because it did not meet the requirements of the discussion subject matter. You believe you have gained interest, and therefore do not take the pressure off for fear of loosing attention. And inevitably due to to much concentration in long periods, slight sleep deprivation due to the days correspondents still on your mind when you retire to bed. And your normal daily duties becoming second to focusing on your posted topic.. am I still right so far ?. As I said, I do not understand many of aspects of what you have posted here, but up to the point you decided to terminate your posts ( I emphasis "up to the point" !!), I see no comments related to character status or any kind of belittlement on the part of these guys here. Because of the symptoms I have referred to above, you start to read into things the wrong way, and take responses at face value instead of giving yourself chance to fully absorb their meaning. I you get a response that in your opinion has caused you annoyance, you should walk your dog in the park for an hour if you have one (park I mean !), and then start again with a fresh outlook... trust me it does make a difference. Unfortunately I did not practice what I am preaching here. I was slow to get to the point of my topic which in text would give the impression of being "Obtuse" I did select a better example of my topic to demonstrate, over a less impressive example which implies "cherry-picking", and a suggestion of posting "anecdotal" information, which on reflection would be a determination based on the combination of my miss interpretation of the questions, and a miss understanding of the topic. Another problem similar to your self was problems with scientific terminology, I felt like I was being picked on at every step, and labelled with these names but in fact I was being "corrected" and the terms used reflected the situation and not a character reference... and this is what they do here, facts, statistics and corrections. I did not see this at the time, but I do now. They have all different categories here, and they also have a lounge area. But I have to admit I did reach points that I wanted to ask for directions to the bullring !. Reading back through my own responses, I have concluded that I was rude to the attending moderator, too quick to respond to fellow members assumptions, and border line disrespectful or prejudicial towards another scientific doctoring. I did not get what I came for, but I did take away more than expected i.e. experience, advice and don't argue with the boss (late apologies here !). If you truly feel you need to put something across, make your point and let them analyse what you have, and if you don't get the result you wanted, look for other avenues. It is always best to finish on mutual terms , than throw in the towel. Otherwise how many more years to you want to continue with this idea in your head, feeling hopeless because nobody will listen ?. I have it on good authority from observing smoke signals from my neighbour across the valley, that hearsay bars will increase 5 cents on the dollar tomorrow, so I had better check my investments... that's a joke by the way, something else that can be interpreted the wrong way, if not directed otherwise. Good luck E B

In all honesty, who knows? The administration's behaviour is so detached from any fact-based frameworks that it becomes impossible to ascertain any strategy in anything. It could be a planned distraction. It could be something he saw on Fox and now thinks it's real. There could be the assumption that straight threatening (without counterpoint) is actually a viable foreign policy. There have been so many times were Trump and his administration are contradicting each other (and then claim the opposite) the overall strategy seems to be to create as much smoke as possible to cover up the fire. I give it a good chance that they have no idea what they want, either (with each faction having their own, probably uninformed ideas).

Your claim was more than that. You said they didn't exist, and you stated that with absolute certainty. ("In terms of nature, there are no regularities at all") If one looks at e.g. Bose-Einstein statistics, on sees a certain expected behavior occurring only if atoms are identical, and different behavior if they are not. We observe the behavior of them being identical. It's not the model that has this regularity. The model requires that of the atoms.

Not to mention the motivation of something else. Where do think free will resides on the bell curve? Do you even know your self what you are asking? "Where does 'free will' reside on the 'free-not free' Bell curve?" The only consistent, but meaningless, answer would be: "It resides at the free will end.' Try again. Or let it be... (speaking words of wisdom...).

We are not using it to explain how molecules form, we are using it as a word to that avoids us having to use several words. It's how language works. It's a classifier. Saying that an elephant is an animal, tells us nothing if we choose to ignore (as you are doing for emergence) to that this places elephants in a specific group. Emergent properties are a specific group of properties. That's all there is to it. It's a convenient way of facilitating discussion, however it only works if the all the participants understand the language. You've decided that calling something an animal tells us nothing.