swansont

This is such a load of crap. How about stop telling us what atheists think or believe. Even if you are an atheist, you don’t speak for anyone but yourself, and atheists are no more of a monolithic group than religious people are

The agreement was there would be no fact-checking

! Moderator Note I’m not sure what this is, but 1. it’s not physics 2. There is a thread already open

Every year homeopathy doesn’t win a chemistry Nobel, the dilution increases, boosting its chances of winning.

! Moderator Note Closed at OP’s request

Sure. But since I offered no such axiom, this is a bit of a straw man To an extent, yes, but science is so interconnected that for anything that’s not a new or cutting-edge finding, you have corroboration in the form of follow-up studies, and/or technology based on the science to support the idea that it’s right. In the former case, it requires a massive conspiracy for that faith not to be justified, and in the latter case, you’d need an entirely new and probably undiscovered paradigm to explain why the technology works; either it’s being covered up (again, a massive conspiracy) or you need scientists to be completely inept. Not personally witnessing or experiencing something does not turn this into religious faith.

Repeating this does not make it true. You have asserted this, but provided no model and no evidence of it, as is required. Further, you haven’t shown how any of this is an issue of causality.

Harrot has been banned for repeated preaching and racist/sexist bad faith arguments.

I was careful not to say that physics doesn’t answer why questions, so this is moot.

And you are free to find them loathsome. But if you start thinking you can execute people who don’t measure up to your standards, where do you draw the line? You fall into “first they came for the socialists…” territory, and while it might seem like a slippery slope argument, we (should) all know how that played out. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... The bottom line is that no, you don’t get to demonize groups or make them seem subhuman. Bad things tend to happen. It simply can’t be permitted. (and this is not delving into the barbaric nature of executions)

Lorentz transformations are mathematical, so yeah. I’m not sure what you mean by physical explanation; nothing about the meter stick physically changes, as I said, so there’s nothing “physical” to explain. The contention was “SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed’ “why is c invariant?” is a different question. Physics is an attempt to try and explain/predict how nature behaves, not why it is the way it is. The claim that nothing is shrinking is based on c being invariant. The ramifications are predicted and experiments confirm it. That’s in the domain of physics. “Why” is in the domain of metaphysics.

! Moderator Note That was not the proposal, and preaching violates our rules. Leave religion out of discussions that aren’t about religion.

Still not evidence

But there wasn’t, so your whole point is a distraction. I don’t know. It doesn’t matter to this issue; you claimed that “to exclude men, wich (sic) are half of the population, from the healthcare project is just medical nonsense.” and a service that caters to women is not evidence that men are excluded. I can personally attest to the fact that men can and do have access to cardiologists. According to your horrendously flawed logic, the existence of e.g. a women’s soccer team means that men are excluded from playing soccer. Which is abject nonsense. You haven’t presented evidence that they aren’t, but one has to recognize that equal treatment does not mean treating two groups the same.

Plus a paper from 1982 probably has follow-on work, which would support, rebut or constrain the proposal.

That’s not evidence of anything. It’s like concluding that unexplained flashes of lights in the sky are aliens. edit: it’s even less, since at least flashes of light are evidence of something.

But you have no evidence. Your position is not based on that.

Utter twaddle. Men are not excluded from healthcare just because one group focuses on reaching out to women. I can’t find this quote in the link. No mention of “husband” at all

You said in another thread you had no agenda, yet this is a recurring theme in your discussions.

As I pointed out before, the numbers matter. "Faster" is relative. If humans are able to create life, even if it's 100 years from now, they will have done so at least a million times faster than nature did. How many people do you think are actively trying to do this in a lab? Right. That should have been 10^-16

This, like the black lives matter vs all lives matter, misses the point. Could it be that women face a higher risk of death from heart attack than men? https://newsroom.heart.org/news/women-found-to-be-at-higher-risk-for-heart-failure-and-heart-attack-death-than-men Or maybe because there is an existing health care gap https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/08/womens-health-gap-healthcare/ https://mcpress.mayoclinic.org/women-health/working-toward-gender-equity-in-womens-health-care/ It is a medical issue, and political one (though not the political issue your tone suggests)

Saying harder just makes the same mistake. And the response is still "So what?" That there is a better realization of how difficult it is should make it less prominent of an issue (edit: x-post with zap)

That's religious faith, i.e. definition 1 But that's not the only definition of faith. No, that's not what I referenced

! Moderator Note “Neurodivergent” is rather vague, since it’s not some binary condition (i.e. a number of ways to be atypical) and with a simplistic answer of “it depends on the environment” just like with any trait. Without a narrower definition to focus this, I don’t see that there’s much real discussion to be had

You’re confusing perception with reality No, I don’t think this is true. We don’t know what the conditions were, and chemical combinations are, in a sense, trial and error. Some events have low probability and rely on a large number of attempts. proton-proton fusion in the sun, for example, has a probability of somewhere around 10^16 10^-16 per collision - on average a proton would fuse once in a billion years. But there are a lot of protons, so we get fusion. Similarly an event that’s got a low probability of happening in a day in a 1L flask, is going to have that probability enhanced by the number of liters of water under the right conditions (10^15? 10^20?) and the number of days of the reaction (there being around 10^9 days in 300 million years) The math doesn’t agree with your unsupported assertion