Leaderboard

mistermack, I applaud you for your concern about population growth and its high ranking as a world problem. I also applaud your optimism and your belief that it's a problem that should be addressed more widely. If it is addressed, there is a chance that some fresh and useful ideas can be generated. I regret that you were not around when I raised the matter under the theme of climate change. If it is not addressed more widely, nothing will change. I totally agree with your recent comment "Surely the chances of it happening affect the quality of the idea. Which puts your idea at a value close to zero. I put forward various ideas, all of which are better, for that very reason. There's no reason why family planning products and advice couldn't be made available in every country in the world that has a high birth rate. The cost would be tiny, compared to the pay-off. The price of aid could also be linked to measures taken against churches that preach against contraception. Churches could easily be leaned on in any case. Just the threat of changing their tax status would have an instant effect on their behaviour. If population growth was given just ten percent of the publicity that global warming gets, then attitudes could be changed very quickly. The world is obsessed by CO2, and is completely ignoring the real threat to the planet. It's like being led towards the guillotine, and worrying about rust on the blade." Please accept this as a word of support for your stance, rather than a contribution to the topic.

If I were offering an alternative argument, perhaps. What I was doing instead was applying more rigor in the terms being used. BBT is NOT vague and incomplete because of infinities and "the origin of everything". Again, not applicable here. A "god in the gaps" is NOT about having to show where the god's creators came from. But perhaps you didn't mean to use a phrase so similar to "god OF the gaps", and I'm being picky. And I thought you misrepresented "current opinion" as well, but again that could be the difference between science and philosophy. My comments were to clarify in an attempt to keep more misunderstanding from forming on the part of the OP, not as an alternative argument.

! Moderator Note Please stop, it's like fingernails on a chalk board. This doesn't meet the scientific requirements of ANY of our sections, which means it's the foundation for wasted time and typing. If you're a bot, you'll leave more evidence and we'll soon remove you. If you really think these words in this order are reasonable, then you need to read up on the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The words you think you know don't mean what you think they mean. If you're willing to learn some actual science, please read some posts, sign up for some free online classes (Khan Academy is amazing), and you'll gradually pick up on how the terminology and processes are really used. You'll be able to put the words together in ways that have meaning and clarity for others interested in mainstream science. And remember, theories are the gold standard in science. They aren't guesses; they're the most trustworthy explanations for various phenomena available. When you call something "theoretical", it's a LOT more than saying, "It may be possible".

Their soapbox stances elevate their ears above the discussion, turning them into monologues.

Which force predominates depends upon the distance the interaction operates. That is often stated at bit more vaguely as the scale. When considered as 'forces' the scale or distance order ( not strength order) is weak < strong < electromagnetic < gravity. So the weak force predominates at the very shortest scales, smaller than nuclear particles, The strong force predominates at scales the size of the nucleus The electromagnetic force predominates at scales the size of a molecule (ie bigger than an atom) The gravitational force predominatres at the size of galaxies. This Wiki article has readable presentations of all this and more. Note the key word is interactions, not forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction At scales the size of the nucleus and smaller

Sure, but what if someone purposely told you there was an important reason they didn't want their username capitalized (it's a family thing, or a cultural thing, or a religious thing, or...), and they'd appreciate it if you'd remember not to do it when spelling their name. And if you kept "slipping up" and substituting a y where that person prefers an i, it would be somewhat like the experience of transgenders who place a great deal of importance on how they're addressed, and consider it a matter of respect (or lack thereof). To them, your slip ups may eventually looked planned and purposeful, to insult or otherwise show a lack of respect for their choices.

What's so wrong with a preacher?

Phi, you're kicking a straw man. You seem to be replying to the opposite of what I posted. Maybe you should read it again.