Lord Antares

Oh please. Can you provide evidence of said psychics? If you cannot, that means you have no proper reason to believe in them yourself. The James Randi challenge has never been claimed despite it being offered for a very long time. No one has ever proved any psychic abilites. On what basis do you claim that there are real psychics? Your ''questionnare'' is preposterous.You don't get to decide who takes part in this thread. Also, if you want only people who believe in psychic phenomena to post, you will find that probably no one will take part. Not to mention that your little ''questionnare'' has absolutely nothing to do with the existance of psychic phenomena or lack thereof. The rules of this forum are that pseudosciences are allowed, however, if you make a claim, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence for it. You've made a claim that you know of real psychics. I suggest you focus on providing evidence and discussing the thread title, instead of arrogantly posing a questionnare for you to decide who is even ''qualified'' to take part in this discussion.

This forum gets a fair share of people like you. All of them claim to be the single most intelligent life form on earth. Why do you take a small sample of a few friends and from that deduce that you will win every argument in your life based on (supposedly) winning arguments with your friends? This is not an attack on your persona. You opened a thread with no content and no value. Why did you not just open that psychic thread which you will go on to win logically, as you say. You will find that there are a lot of very smart people here. I suspect that you won't win any kind of argument on psychic matters. You will then either proceed to ignore everything and call the people here stupid, or you will learn some humility.

1) The rules of the forum require members to be able to discuss the content without visiting external links. This paper is short enough to just post on the forum 2) There is still no math and therefore, no proof or any kind of test or experiment provided.

You think they couldn't refute you. I bet they did but you didn't listen. Anyway, there is no point in starting a psychic thread on a science forum. You have no evidence and therefore, cannot win any argument.

And how do you know they knew that? Nothing in your post indicates so. On the topic of coincidences, I quite like this one:

I don't get the question in this thread. Are you asking if it's a coincidence that they called the center of the galaxy ''the center of the galaxy''? And so they must know where the center is? What?

Yes, http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102741-dipole-repeller-waitwhat/ We're discussing it here

Yes, it's confusing if you think about it. We know space to bend around matter so there would be absolutely no reason for it to push it. On the other hand, how could matter be getting further apart if space wasn't pushing it along with its expansion? The more I think about it, the more questions get raised. Yes but what does ''same direction mean''. Does it mean: 1) parallel to one another? That wouldn't make sense to me. The only way that they could be travelling parallel is if they were bound into one body by gravity but that would be the only way they could be moving anyway then 2) inwards from parallel, towards a focal point? Shapley supercluster being the focal point, for example. But that could be easily calculated and verified, no? 3) outward from parallel? But you wouln't be saying this if that were the case and the Shapley supercluster couldn't be the destination then anyway.

This is strange. They are saying that the expansion of the universe is affected by gravity because mass is pulling space back so that it expands slower. That would also mean that there is ''resistance'' of a body to the expansion which is proportional to the mass of said body. Also, this would mean that, theoretically, if you had a body with high enough mass, it would overcome the expansion and make space fall inward. kind of like a black hole. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Also, I don't know what they mean by ''astronomers discovered that the Milky Way, along with all the other galaxies in our neighbourhood, were hurtling towards the same region of space'' Don't all local bodies gravitate in roughly the same direction in the universe? Or are they referring to local movement? As far as I can tell, this has no legitimate proof. It's just a hypothesis.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for the corrections. So that disproves OP's argument as well. right?

I know there's a ''š'' over the word. We speak the same language. Hmm, it's really strange. I googled the term ''vertex'' and it really isn't the same as ''hvatište''. There is only one website that attempts to translate the word, and it is into: ''point of application of a force''. That doesn't sound right. Doesn't sound like a term. Anyway, googling further, I think there is no word for it really. I think English uses different words for different uses of the word ''hvatište''. For example, take this text: ''U fizici, točka tijela u kojoj djeluje sila. Primjerice, hvatište sile teže u težištu je tijela, hvatište težine u ovjesištu ili uporištu, a hvatište je uzgona u geometrijskom središtu uronjenoga dijela tijela.'' That would suggest that, talking about gravity, hvatište is simply the center of mass. Other forms of force would require different terms in English, I guess.

Hello John. Can you explain this for someone who is illiterate in mathematics? Because this seems like exactly the sort of thing that comes up in an IQ test. If there is a learnable method to solve the puzzle, that would invalidate the point of this type of question in an IQ test, right? I cannot really follow the logic of your mathematics here.

I think there is a bit of a contradiction in your question. Is it a point where it is acting upon or a point where it is originating from? Because these are two different things. Maybe you meant to say a point where it is acting FROM? Anyway, assuming you're from the Balkans, can you give the term in the original language?

Can you clarify what you mean by ''dreams are hallucinations''? Of course they are. You see and hear things that aren't happening and aren't true. Hence, hallucinations.

That is faulty logic. First of all, we need a citation for this. These numbers seem random to me. But more importantly, I will tell you why that doesn't make sense at all. Take an example of a person for whom the following statements are true: This person is 27, he is a banker, he lives in Finland. He has been to 3 Asian countries and 2 American countries. He hates bagels. He has a strange fascination with pencils. He doesn't like any seafood. He was an extra in the movie ''Inception''. He has a rating of 1837 in chess. He drives a Honda Civic etc etc. What are the odds of all these things being true for a person? They're incredibly small, so it can't be a coincidence, right? Do you see the problem with this logic? The odds of a combination of all things being true for any person in the world are incredibly small. The odds of any world being the way it is are comparably small because there are SO MANY variables. This is why that doesn't mean anything.

Oh, I guess I misunderstood the modnote. I thought it was meant to say: ''for future reference, we get to decide the changes being made to the forum''

In regards to this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102612-suggestion-about-the-speculations-forum/ I was nothing but civil throughout the discussion. I attempted to help improve the forum and I rationalized all my suggestions. Never at any point did I demand that these changes be applied, as Phi for All said. Never did I converse with a negative tone or attacked swansont in any way. So why did my thread get locked for something another member said? I did not say these words, so why was the modnote addressing anyone else but the person who did? I think there is more to discuss. I think I brought up a valid point in my last post before closure, which I will no longer have the chance to reply to. If you do not want suggestions, that is fine by me. If you do want suggestions, then why punish me by closing a rationally discussed thread for something I didn't even say? Again, I did not demand these changes. I do believe that these changes would benefit the forum. If you do not like these suggestions, I'm OK with that but is it reason enough to lock the thread?

That is a very interesting thought. I undestand what you mean. You mean to say that the edges of the event horizon are perfectly curved in 360° so there is no straight way out. However, if this is the answer, how is there a way in?

No. His response was this: Anyway, I can add to that. Alright, why would you not state all of that in the rules? Why would you not at least add a link to that thread to the rules. I for one wouldn't think to check that thread after having read the rules posted in my picture in the OP. I would read the rules (which I might misunderstand because they are ambiguous) and I would assume I'm good to go. I wouldn't realize that there are more rules in more detail which are not explained in the rules section, because how would I know that? The very least that could be done is to add a link to that thread in the rules saying ''for the full rules and guidelines, click here:'' The purpose of opening this thread is to help you and other mods get as few bad/unsupported threads as possible. Clarifying the rules might help do just that.

What on earth does any of this mean?

No, it doesn't because it was perhaps written clumsily, but can you not deduce that this is what is being asked from the pragmatics of the question? You know why your conclusion does not make sense in this case? Because by knowing the definition of entropy, she would know the answer to her question. She knows entropy increases with time (not always as you said, but this is besides the point and off-topic). It would be similar to someone asking ''does a black hole suck things in?''. You would expect them to know the answer to that if they know what a black hole is, right? Maybe it's not a very good analogy, but I think it applies here. Also, she said she has been thinking about this. She can very, very easily find out if entropy increases with time, so that's more indication that she wasn't asking that question. The addition of the IF clause is for me the biggest indication that she is asking an either/or question. I think I could go on finding more indication here but you get what I am trying to say, hopefully. Tell that to the OP, not me. This is a better answer.

I'm making the case that it's one question, nevermind the two question marks. The same way that ''is the earth rotating around the sun or is the sun rotating around the earth?'' is one question, so is ''Does entropy increase with time ? Or Does it make Time?''. The question about the earth and sun doesn't need two answers. It needs one answer and therefore, it contains one question. The same is true for the question in the OP. Swansont is unjustly saying this is nonsense.

????? But it is: Cause equals make in this context, especially following the previous question. And it seems that another person agrees with my interpretation. Is he an idiot as well? I'm sorry that you feel the need to be so condescending towards me. I never meant to start a fight, I was discussing this rationally, so your tone is unwarranted. I have never and will never question your knowledge of physics, but you misunderstood the question. If you are better at physics than me, does that mean that you will always interpet the pragmatics of a conversation better than me? No, of course it doesn't.

I searched for the thread but I couldn't find it, so I cannot argue this. Anyway, maybe just make this small change: Instead of it reading ''it has a few rules:'', maybe it should read ''for threads claiming a new scientific theory, these rules apply:'' I really don't think that would be too bothersome to add and would help with clarity.

OR does it make time. Trust me, it was an either/or question on her part. So therefore, she asked what causes what.