swansont

Yes, it does. The order matters. The claim was "Some sports though have been segregated specifically to ensure Women do have an equal platform." which is past-tense, so what happened in the past is relevant here. That's the historic reason for segregation was not equality of opportunity, and it's not like that system was torn down and then re-instituted. I'm not ignoring that. I'm trying to make sure that we're discussing fact and not fiction. One of the huge (social/political) issues here is that we are stuck in a binary classification for a not-binary reality (biology) and that has been with us for a long time. But that classification was not about equal opportunity, since that equal opportunity did not exist. How are they diluted? They are the reason we have the classifications in the first place. You have round pegs and square pegs, and round holes and square holes. But this ignores the triangular peg (and convincing some that triangular pegs exist), and deciding which hole it goes in. I don't think anyone has suggested we go from two classification to one.

How is that not "Treat transgendered women as women and let them compete in women’s sports."? I'm not seeing a distinction here. (Technically it's not "end program" because what they support is legislation that would "explicitly prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity" so it goes beyond sports, but that's moot owing to the topic of the thread) The segregation does not equate to opportunity. That's falsified by a simple glance at history, as I pointed out earlier: women were not permitted to compete in most sports, period. The segregation was part of inequality of opportunity. e.g. IIRC the 1920 Olympics had 22 sports where men competed, and 6 where women competed. Explain to me how this segregation makes 6 = 22

Sports have been segregated in this fashion for a long time. In many instances it started out as "men only, no women at all" That's hardly an equal platform. Ensuring women have an equal opportunity to participate is a much more recent event, and was not an example of the segregation being created.

Particles cannot be contained?

Yes, it’s another term for the main group (but also includes the noble gases) and has the property I described. They are also the most abundant of the elements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-group_element

The elements in each column have similar behaviors, because they have the same shell-filling.

No. When you let go of a ball, you haven’t given it energy. If you throw a ball you impart energy to it, but gravity affects the ball whether or not you gave it energy.

What?

You calibrate a length, of say, one meter, on some transportable item. Let’s call it a “meter stick” I measure the rod by comparing it with the meter stick. Why do you think there is a temporal component to this? The length is independent of time.

A lack of explanation is simply that. It’s not evidence. I don’t have to show what can cause such sightings. I’m simply pointing out that it’s not evidence. Not being able to draw a conclusion means aliens is one of the things that you can’t conclude. edit: I invited people to post supporting evidence earlier. No takers.

There’s the negative proposition - eliminating the possibility, which you can’t do. But there’s the positive proposition - establish that it’s aliens, which AFAICT nobody has come close to doing. The former does not own the burden of proof. The latter does.

The reports aren't being "handwaved away" - it's just being pointed out that a phenomenon without explanation does not count as evidence. And this "prodiditious" (prodigious?) amount of evidence is basically nil, if one uses the same standard as in science. Which is what we want here, being a science discussion site. IOW, "we can't explain this" or "something triggered the radar" ≠ "it's aliens"

The universe is 3-D. The solar system is approximately 2-D, with far fewer moving parts.

I would suggest using a search engine for such inquiries https://lmgtfy.app/?q=Open+Command+Prompt+as+administrator

We've done and we do that, so...

Makes sense to me that recognizing patterns would be helpful in survival, and being better at it would give a selection advantage. Especially for a medium-sized species that lacks innate "weaponry" and can't run particularly fast. Run that into a feedback loop, and being able to figure out where food will be, how to hunt more effectively, where predators will be, etc. and how to fashion weapons and tools, and be the first to effectively exploit that niche, and you get us. Yes. One of the drawbacks is seeing patterns that aren't there, but then again, discretion is the better part of being devoured by a predator.

Or predictable but in subtle ways, i.e. more than one or two variables. I think prediction is the key here, in ways that go beyond a Pavlovian response. The world still follows rules, but the rules might not be simple, which limits the accuracy of prediction (or reconstruction of past events/patterns).

Look, not travel. If you observe a galaxy 1 billion LY from us, you are seeing it as it was roughly 1 billion years ago (there will be some discrepancy owing to motion and expansion) Images from e.g. Hubble from very distant galaxies are looking far into the past, i.e. close to the BB. But travel? No.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.8 Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. IOW, threads should not look like blog posts.

Perhaps reading this would help https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

This new learning amazes me. Explain again how sheep's bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes. Anyway, here’s the punchline from the article (note: it’s OK, and in fact preferred, to include a relevant excerpt from a link)

The material doesn’t really matter in terms of how it operates. I remember doing this with string and with copper wire. Yes they are, as they are sound waves. Evidence that they are longitudinal rather than transverse.

As I’m sure everyone recalls, this thread is not about aliens This thread is: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124844-aliens-from-space-split-from-time-to-talk-about-ufos-or-now-as-the-military-calls-them-uaps/

If they have no mass or resistance to change in momentum, then it has no resistance to change in momentum. Adding zero an infinite number of times still leaves you with zero. You don't have a model. You don't make the distinction between any of this. You are co-opting physics terminology, but then assigning behavior that is not consistent with existing physics. e.g. your interaction is not gravitation, because we already have a model for that. Your particles are not gravitons. You can't discuss momentum or mass because your interaction does not follow the laws of physics. If your entities had no mass they must travel at c. They would not collect anywhere. You need new physics to explain other behavior. If you have a field, then make a model using that field. But until you have a model what you have is a story. And it's not a good story, because chapter 2 says one thing, and then chapter 5 says something different, like it was written by someone else and they were trying to get out of a plot hole, without any effort at continuity. And stories aren't enough for discussion in speculations. Case in point: No mass means infinite acceleration under the influence of a force. So either it's nonsense, or you abandon Newton's laws of motion, meaning you come up with a formulation where you can discuss this, with all the equations that allow one to calculate the results you are insisting on.

I don’t find false dichotomies to be all that interesting.