Leaderboard

You should avoid seeking employment with Oxford or Merriam Websters. Your definition of time is perhaps the single worst I've ever seen. I thought the question was about life and consciousness. It's even right there in the thread title.

And while we are now just seeing this, it occurred 27,000 years ago; during the Upper Paleolithic, and while we were in the Last Glacial Period. Woolly mammoth still roamed the mainland.

"Dark" in reference to "dark matter" simply means undetectable by electromagnetic radiation, either consisting of MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo objects, e.g, Black holes, neutron stars etc. ) or WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles; basically a type of matter that does not participate via the electromagnetic interaction; something similar to the neutrino)* "Dark" if reference to dark energy is just a placeholder label chosen because we had already coined the term "dark matter" and Science isn't always overly creative when when comes to naming stuff. In other words, don't make too much of the usage of the word here. * Observations tend to limit how much dark matter can be made up of MACHOs. Basically, an large amount of mass consisting of MACHOS today would have had effects on how the universe evolved during its earlier stages, and would had led to a universe that would look different than what we see.

For me, lately the purpose of life is to find purpose. Sometimes life feels overwhelming. But it's always the small things that lift me. People saying hello, helping me out when they have no reason to, being nice, small things like that. So I guess my purpose would be to remember you only have to do small things to really help someone. And try to be less of a socially awkward dick too, that would help.

Why else do governments seek to destroy the unions?

All good points. That is certainly true if you consider gravity a force (a la Newton). And if you take the GR interpretation, then you get relative motion with no force on the objects (which is the point I was making, albeit not very explicitly).

I have three points nobody seems to have considered, to add to this discussion. Firstly this idea of a virgin body that has never felt a force. That’s why they might actually be stationary, in other words, no momentum.  If an object has experienced a force to make it move surely it has momentum, wouldn’t it make sense to then choose a frame of reference that hasn’t had a force applied to it? Within the bounds aof all known mathematics this requires a single body in an otherwise empty universe. As soon as you introduce more than one body there will always be some sort of force between them. Secondly zero momentum could be momentary (and frame dependant), but the requirement has always been zero net force, not zero force. Thirdly there is no magic in pair production from radiation.

Moore isn't a climate expert. Where did he get it? I'm betting you don't know that. Yes. That's not in contention. No, I seriously doubt that. Fossilization as a carbon sink? How does that work, changing bone into minerals capturing carbon? And the graph you posted showed 150 ppm, going to zero in the future (15 million years in the future, but still). How does any of this support that claim? Here the graph flattens out at about ~2 mya. I don't see how this can be claimed to support the graph in question. You seem to be missing the point: the only data we have from planets is, at best, several decades old. We don't have a handle on longer-term cycles that might be present. If it was the sun, we should see warming everywhere, in a predictable fashion based on distance from the sun. Triton, for example. You can calculate how much further away it is, and how much energy it gets compared to us. The temperature rise should be related to that. If Triton's temperature went up 7 ºF in a certain window of time, what should have happened on earth in the same time frame? Did that happen? Do some science! (I have to think we would have seen a larger rise in temperature than Triton would) Note that the moon rise in temperature (which you dismiss as silly with no actual scientific analysis) does not happen in the same time window. Again, if the moon's temperature went up in the 70s, why didn't that happen on earth? (the temperature was pretty flat https://phys.org/news/2017-01-earth-global-temperature.html) We are exposed to the same sun, after all. This any-port-in-a-storm attempt at rebuttal lacks any scientific merit whatsoever. It's crap. It might fool some of the people some of the time, but it really doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is devoid of intellectual honesty.

Nationalists are increasing tensions between "our country" and "foreign country" (whatever they are). That's what they fed on. If there used to be war between one country and other country, nationalists will be celebrating loss and/or win. Over and over again, in year ceremonies to sustain remembership of the victory, or better (for them) remembership of the loss. They (nationalists) are poisoning minds of newly born kids with their crap, to hate foreigners, and to hate people from different cultures, different races, different religions, different worldviews, and so on, so on.

Actualy, thats kind of the question and the answer i was looking for. And what I had in mind writing in this forum. "If it turns out that it is infinite that means it was infinite in the past."

Also keep in mind we can only extrapolate our Observable universe portion. The original singularity we have no way of knowing if it is finite or infinite. We only know the portion of shared causality at [math]10^{-43} [/math] seconds that leads to our observable universe was an extremely hot dense state smaller than an atom but that is only our observable portion in the past not the entirety of the universe. Which could be finite or infinite. A finite cannot become infinite nor the reverse. So if it's infinite now then it's infinite in the past. ( In volume portionality) which is different than mathematical singularities where the math no longer accurately describes it.

Both Orion and myself do, we're breaking apart the relations that went into the OP Langrene. Right now I'm trying to determine if it's canonical or conformal by looking at the EW Langrene through symmetry break via the Higgs. Which will confirm the Higgs and Yukawa couplings underbrace sections. We're both learning from this gives us a refreshing challenge. The Yukawa section is rather challenging. I've already confirmed the Higgs and Dirac covariant derivative forms.

+1 Perfect logic requires the right assumptions, and we can't be absolutely sure about the ones we have taken on.

I think my grandfather-- who was a well-educated and thoughtful man, had it worked out.. When my Father graduated from college, my grandfather sent him a handwritten note with the following message: "Wishing you throughout the years, a fullness of happiness, a diligent pursuit of purpose and a life of fruitful accomplishments (June, 1941)

Continuous information about space.