swansont

Why would they? They are a matter of personal preference, i.e. subjective rather than objective. If you’re going to argue that something is right, there needs to be objective evidence of it, and a mathematical model to compare with the experimental results. You have to pick one or the other (subjective or objective) What you can’t do is jump between the two as a matter of convenience

Multiple reports of what? That Trump said it? That’s not the issue. That an Iranian official denied it was in the same story at CNN That the media still credulously repeats everything that Trump says has to be viewed as massive failure of modern “journalism” They were warned by Iran. Iran gets to say they retaliated, US avoids serious damage. That particular show of bravado can end. Until Netanyahu manipulates Trump into more engagement, or Trump needs another dustraction from his disastrous domestic policies.

Commenting/editorializing on the material posted is not a personal attack.

You believe Trump? What do Israel and Iran say?

Is there an actual science question? Just posting links isn’t enough - we expect things to be discussed to be posted here.

Existing theories quantify the effects, i.e. they have math, and are falsifiable. Quite successful, too. How would one quantify the effects in your proposal, and test it in a rigorous way?

Yes, this is how density, mass and volume relate to each other. It’s really just one equation, which can be rearranged via basic algebra

Volume is already “cubic”; the dimensions of V are L^3 (L is length) Your equations are inconsistent

The Higgs was predicted in the standard model, which is the prevailing theory. Supersymmetry theories look for things beyond the standard model. Multiverse is more of a conjecture. I wasn’t aware either made a Higgs prediction, given that the standard model exists. Do you have references that say otherwise? Supersymmetry predicts the Higgsino, the fermion partner to the Higgs boson, which has not been found.

Wigberto has been banned for bad-faith arguments (specifically creationist trolling) and re-opening a closed topic.

And bad at following the rules. You can go be an ignorant creationist troll (sorry, that’s redundant) elsewhere.

It is. It describes the US as a whole, without acknowledging any nuance. But it’s not a stereotype, since it’s not talking about people

Who is “we” in this scenario?

That would be making the same error. “gun-happy USA” is not saying “all Americans love guns” so changing the country and subject is still a problem The failure is twofold. You are changing the country to citizens of that country (Canadians love hockey, which is a stereotype), and compounding the error by adding an “all” Is Canada “hockey-happy”? Sure seemed that way when I lived there. I’ve joked that a Canadian news broadcast went “War has broken out and natural disasters have hit multiple countries. But first, the hockey results”

That’s not a fair comparison. “Gun-happy USA” refers to the country, and such a generalization does not imply that all inhabitants have that attitude. So it’s a bit of a strawman. Between levels of private gun ownership and the legal framework which allows it, I think “gun-happy USA” is a reasonable assessment of the country. It’s not a stereotype of the people, though it’s true for a critical mass of the people in power.

You need to consider the possibility that those bombing hospitals know exactly what they’re doing

Moderator NoteYou were explicitly told not to include AI content in the discussion. Link removed.

Helium and a trace amount of Lithium were also created in the Big Bang (which the OP may not accept as being true, either)

A iNow said, it could have happened during the switchover, or it could be some other data corruption, but I don’t know what can be done about it.

I didn’t say they were, I said they were offering up the same talking points. Creationist talking points are doubtful of evolution. They can be arrived at independently, of course, but the misunderstanding required almost has to be willful, because it’s not that hard to get good information. “the fittest always survive” (emphasis added) is your strawman. No part of the actual theory claims this.

This ignores the population aspect I mentioned, along with probabilities. There are others that can survive and reproduce. Not very good logic. Again, your logic escapes me. It’s not even consistent with your earlier statement about the “vulnerable” and “favorite prey” of predators. Your strawman/caricature of natural selection as proposed by Darwinism is what does not exist. The actual theory is just fine.

In science “theory” has a particular meaning, quite distinct from the lay definition. A lot of important things (though perhaps not important to you) depend on it. Just trying to clarify the scope here, and from my perspective I could say the same thing. As I have no interest in the metaphysical aspects (as you say, it has no impact on the science) I’ll leave you to it.

Disney is also suing Midjourney. https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/11/tech/disney-universal-midjourney-ai-copyright-lawsuit When the AI firms are stealing from individuals it’s hard to fight back, but the big dogs don’t like it when you steal their content, either.

Musk has his multi-billion dollar contract, so it’s not really a setback. And a link I provided earlier critiques his approach as not actually being iterative (the turnaround is too fast to actually be doing that)

You keep jumping back and forth. I commented on interpretations and then you call it a theory. When I respond to that, you jump back to it being an interpretation. See? Here you’re back to calling it a theory, and claim there’s math Let me ask this: is there any measurable difference in how a quantum system responds, depending on whether there is a conscious observer? (Like an electron changing state and emitting a photon) Some change in the interaction, or the laws governing it? I see the math, even if you don’t.