swansont

As opposed to what? You say this as if it’s not the inherent nature of choice. How do you vote for only part of a person?

That’s not at all obvious to me. In the US, the combined net worth of the twelve wealthiest people exceeds $2 trillion. Meanwhile we have homeless people. And people in other countries are worse off. What seems to be true is that being poor in the US still affords more comfort than being poor did in times before technology. You can be poor and still have e.g. access to indoor plumbing. It’s not necessarily synonymous with destitute. That’s not the same thing.

One problem with putting New Year’s day on the solstice is that it moves around - it falls on Dec 20, 21 or 22. A variable length of year might not be the best approach

Raising that possibility. Optimism. Sort of.

More money than brains. If you're an optimistic sort, you might say “at least he didn’t blow it on drugs” but that’s really pushing it.

You say yes, it’s new, but haven’t listed anything new. These effects are already known, so they don’t test your idea unless you quantify the deviations.

Is there any of this that isn’t already part of existing physics? And is it testable?

I didn’t rework your words; I quoted them without change. I did use my own in reply. Not really. An infographic with 24 fallacies listed - am I supposed to have used all of them? Do I pick one? Do you not know which one I allegedly used? Is this just distraction so you don’t have to address the issue (i.e. a red herring, not listed in that link)? Do you not understand how discussions work? Something else? Whether someone else is confused isn’t your call to make.

I didn’t add anything. I pointed out an implication, which suggests the statement is not true. You can retract it or defend it.

Was that in response to me? I didn’t put your name on it, but you said “atheists believe” like there’s some strict doctrine beyond non-belief in gods.

The Romans are to blame for some of it. Moving the start of the new year when reworking their calendar, going from 10 to 12 months. But there are lots of calendars out there, and the new year doesn’t coincide with the Gregorian (or Julian) calendar. Even in the Julian calendar, new year was not always Jan 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year

That implies belief in a supreme being is required to believe in reincarnation, or mysticism (multiple planes of existence). I don’t see why that is true.

! Moderator Note This isn’t the stream-of-consciousness forum. You need to explain what this means, and why it counts as philosophy.

You can absorb protons (particle capture), you can have a particle strike a nucleus and knock a proton out (particle ejection), you can have a neutron turn into a proton or proton turn into a neutron (beta decay and electron capture) and fission (whether induced or a spontaneous decay)

Then they have no place here. Yes, it is. You can’t add variables with different units. You can’t have an exponent with units.

It’s physics. Lots of abstract things in physics. Which is not what physics does. It tells us how nature behaves. The nature of reality is philosophy. How do you empirically test whether you’ve described the nature of reality? As opposed to something else, like Plato’s allegory of the cave?

! Moderator Note I have removed your links. Posting something as facebook or instagram doesn’t tell anyone what the link actually is, and what we’re looking for is some kind of scientific study, not a dozen random people saying something. This is a science discussion site. Anecdotes aren’t data. And, as I said, advertising is against the rules. Thread closed.

“Citation needed” should not be ignored. It’s a reasonable request that you support a claim, and failure to do so makes your post soapboxing. There’s a conversation to be had about the pros and cons of profit-driven research, but griping is not going to work.

! Moderator Note Advertising is not permitted here. Link removed Further, claiming that “many psychiatrists believe that scientists' work is useless, that science itself is pointless, and that no one needs to do anything” absolutely requires supporting material.

popularized, not coined “The term "bug" has been used in engineering and electronics for a while before the era of modern computing. Notable inventor Thomas Edison is known to have used the term "bug" to describe a technical malfunction in his works in the late 19th century, as noted in Princeton's Thomas Edison Papers.” https://www.dbvis.com/thetable/why-are-they-called-bugs/

Several of your equations do not appear to be dimensionally consistent. And you have variables that are not well-defined. Giving actual solutions to a common problem using them (with numbers and units) would be very helpful. And there’s a whole lot of word salad.

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=venezuela+corruption

Citation needed True for most for-profit research Generics are generally much cheaper than the patented drugs were before the patent expired.

Or how earthquakes are no big deal in some parts of the world because barely anybody dies.

Lower cancer rate and probably less infrastructure. Can’t really spend on cancer research if you don’t have research facilities and staff to run them, and train researchers.