Kartazion

Like Darwin? I understand. I'll clarify it. So juste tell me what argument is it? I don't get it. I respect your opinion on the matter. Ah ok. That much. Study for a bachelor's degree to understand this thread. Apologize for what?

Ok. But what question are you talking about? No I ask the question of knowing if it is simply possible. This is not affirmative. Why make a big deal out of it for a simple question? To say that words are ridiculous is not an insult. You know I'm here.

No clueless of what? From the answer to my main question? I'm not trying to figure out how it works, but just getting a science expert answer to my main question. I opened this thread related to this one question. Ah yes of course I forgot that it is forbidden to write on a thread that is several weeks old. The clue is that these are just the words that are ridiculous or stupid. Surely not him. I clearly just wanted to call gibberish stupid and inept.

Yes. So why make a weird analogy when we already have appropriate terms? You should have started there. Yes, you simply try to embed gibberish in a mathematical formula. But I'm more used to talk about elementary particles or fields that candy and people to explain how the universe works. That's why. Stupid or ridiculous does not mean impossible.

@zapatos @joigus @Phi for All I don't know what you're talking about. Apparently the rhetoric you allude to, and that you thought you saw, is completely absurd and does not hold up. Look, I reiterate with a simple definition in bold: These are your words which are stupid. It's a total ineptitude to ask that the science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe.

Bufofrog... you are unable to prove that I said these words.

All right. I can continue then. These are your words. It's a total ineptitude to say that the science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe. It's because you said it yourself: I do not know why this commentary has disappeared from the thread. But is still present on your profile.

Ridiculous your analogy.

Ridiculous as a metaphor. The world that runs the universe I'm talking about is not a world made of candy and people. Don't tell me that extraterrestrials would be at the origin of the Big Bang. But no official announcement from that side I imagine.

If you read between the lines you see that God can also exist. To say that 'invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe', is ambiguous. This description does not say that it/he does not exist. Why ? Quantum physics is not it? Mysterious? The theory of everything should be able to answer: - Yes, we can prove it. How? - No, we can't prove it. Why? I think it is a delicate and embarrassing question that I asked there, because if we had the answer, it would be impossible to reveal to the general public. No? I now understand why no one is answering correctly. Kartazion

I do not understand. Because if this force is detected, how would you be if it is intelligent? ____________________ @joigus @zapatos I prefer summarized like this: How Stephen Hawking could prove that God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe? This is what I want to understand. How and on what basis can science define whether we have a creator or not? If Hawking can explain it by The Grand Design, then others can. But how?

To my surprise science could never explain how the universe works if it is governed by some underlying intelligence. That would be misunderstanding the 'everything'. Where are the limits of everything? Technological only? Science should be able to determine whether the functioning of the universe is random or governed by an intelligent force that rules our universe. Reference: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123416-hijack-from-theory-of-everything/ https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123339-source-of-all

Normally I shouldn't answer because it's off topic. But like swanson or Phi will soon sanction me...let's go. Scientifically speaking it is yes or no. Do you want the real and the false at the same time? Are you alluding to quantum superposition or what? I am no longer responding to the off-topic message.

We can't. We have to open a new thread. I'm going to do one called "Can science prove the existence of an intelligent world that rules our universe?" bis...

Example: God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway? by John C Lennox Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford

You did not specify if the 'enable' is technological or not. I don't really agree. I am going to give you my opinion. It would be for example, in a one in two chance, to find the proof of the existence of a creator. Humanity will be profoundly changed. I really agree.

I believe the conversion rate is 1kHz per volt. To check. Wavelength and frequency of light are closely related. The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength. IOW frequency and wavelength have both direct and inverse relationships.

It's because you told me about Sygate on windows.

Yes. Now everyone uses pfSense. This is why the manufacturers all make mini pc pfSense.

You are right. But I want to be able to approve the connection before it is established. For that I whish to work in C/C++ and eventually in sh/bash. Great solution. Thank you. What do you mean by TCP proxy? AFAIK the proxy server does not generate an ssh certificate, unless of course you install there specifically openssl on it. But the proxy server is often an integral part of the firewall, and the service is useful from LAN to WAN. My connections are on the LAN and without proxy service because I use the 22 ssh port and not the 443 https port. But on the other hand you are right. Because my ssh connection crosses the WAN and the web, and this through I do not know how many servers to reach my destination. But all this is possible thanks to a VPN which creates a tunnel from LAN to LAN. To check.

Detergents are not the source of intelligence. Here we are in the physics section.

As you can see everyone would like to be able to answer this question. But no one is able to do it. Indeed it is the goal of the researchers to try to understand the start of this request. To be able to annihilate this totality, some will rely on a creator without having to try to understand the singnification of all. Others, and through research, will understand that they get bogged down in mathematical formula mechanisms that only they understand ; example And there are us, the novice apprentices who in the end make this question a personal opinion. Obviously everyone in his opinion on the answer to this question. Yes. No.

No. I haven't had time yet. That's why I was asking in case if somebody has an answer. Excellent solution! But this is the same as periodically listing the log file when adding bytes. The goal is to be able to intercept the kernel request at time t in order to be able to immediately inform about the connection.

swansont if you want to talk about lye or detergent, open a new thread.

No I don't mean chemical bond (but the quark bonds yes), via Condensed Matter.