swansont

Not true. It depends on how you do it. You can use a bright source. You aren’t required to do a single-photon experiment. Young used the sun shining through a hole

Or anyone who relies on empirical evidence. It will, if the eyes absorbed more than what’s being replaced. The question is if this was a detectable drop. Seeing as how the lifetime of a photon in a room that’s a few meters across is several nanoseconds, a small perturbation wouldn’t be easily detectable. Walls absorb light, too and eyes don’t have a large surface area. 1 W of visible light is of order 10^18 photons.

No, “we” don’t You can do the double-slit with individual photons, but you don’t have to. When the camera detects the photon there is no more photon. The premise on which your conjecture is based is false.

Need I have an argument? Did I claim that everything you said was wrong? I said stop trolling. I see that you have not. provenance Hence my mentions of uniqueness.

Not much, really. Light is made up of photons, which are the quanta of light. The profound difference is the concept of discrete energy, but there’s no indication that this is what you’re referring to.

What’s the biggest number you can get to in Roman numerals?

I said nothing of the sort. I commented on terminology. I’m saying the Church does not speak out about millionaires and billionaires being sinful because there is no concept of millionaires. You’re viewing this incorrectly; in a way that obscures the actual answer. Does the Bible comment on being rich? Yes. Does it comment on wanting wealth? Yes. It says the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. It tells you not to covet other peoples’ belongings. That the greedy won’t get into heaven. You can’t serve both God and money.

Were they called millionaires? (hint: is there a Roman numeral for a million?)

“Fall” is a colloquial term, but yes. Do you have a point?

Not really an earth-shattering observation here. It might seem so when you first learn or realize it, but it’s not like this is cutting-edge science. It’s great that you’ve arrived at this, but it’s rather mundane knowledge.

Well, it’s the Bible. It’s not like this isn’t on-brand. Millionaire and billionaire are modern concepts relative to Christianity, so that’s not too surprising

! Moderator Note For starters this is a discussion site and not your blog. Soapboxing is against the rules.

The Bible is comprised of an old and a new testament, which have different tones. Perhaps it would be useful to differentiate between them.

Seems to me that this thread is based on some very shaky ground. Believing in a supreme being or being religious does not make one a Christian, and there have been statements that strongly imply that this is being asserted. Christianity is one subset of religion, with one very specific requirement, and no evidence that Einstein fulfilled it. So go and find evidence of this What’s important to you is not necessarily important to others. Projection is not evidence

WTAF? Stop trolling.

But wanting to be rich is. Avarice.

“Trump is the antichrist” isn’t really news. News stations probably don’t want to alienate a bunch of their viewers, and you’re not going to see much criticism of him on Fox or any Sinclair stations Religious programming might do this, if they were actually promoting religion instead of grabbing money and power

Dictated by a historian? Please. (and: providence? a contiguous story? Is this the malaprop channel?) The value isn’t dictated by the artist, per se. It’s not like artists can force their art to be valued. (see e.g. Van Gogh) It’s the people interested in the art that set the value. But if the value is intrinsic then there shouldn’t be a large disparity in who values it.

Where’s the value? Original art can be valuable. Copies much less so. What does that have to do with anything? Van Gogh isn’t considered great because of celebrity endorsements. I said nothing about closing one’s mind to all forms of musical expression. That’s not even close to what I expressed. That speaks to the role that uniqueness has, though. A dead artist won’t be making more of their art.

It doesn’t need to be that involved. The Beatles had/have a lot of fans, but others thought rock was just noise. There are people who are ambivalent about classical music from the masters. Not everyone loves opera. There’s no right or wrong involved.

How can personal preference be right or wrong?

Which god?

It’s likely that some fraction of the people will think your art sucks. That it has no value. Not worth looking at. Revolting, possiblt\y.

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged

! Moderator Note Such conjecture does not comply with the rules of speculations. Nope.