swansont

Moderator NoteYour thread was closed. Since you obviously missed the intent, it means don’t bring the topic up again.

Seems to be a lot of that going around. A commonality seems to be an autocratic leader interested in personal power, who surrounds themselves with like-minded lackeys, scapegoating certain people. The US and Israel are making headlines these days, but there are other countries doing/trying it.

Restating your assertion does not address my question. It just serves to reinforce the idea that your position is an exercise in the fallacy of argument by personal incredulity. (it’s also soapboxing, which is against the rules)

That’s not an answer to my question.

No, I didn’t, but you specifically said to look at the OP, as if that was sufficient. So? So you say, but you do not justify this. What if we assume there is a cause. What prevents and infinite number of events from getting to an arbitrary point in time?

No, it’s not. The OP makes an assertion, which you have not supported.

I did. Where’s the actual contradiction? Why can’t you have an infinite number of steps?

You are, too. Repeating an assertion is not proof. Making a statement that you can’t figure out is not a paradox. Where is the actual contradiction? One problem is that you have a mathematical proposal but refuse to engage in math.

As exchemist noted, the interaction between electrons involves a virtual photon. You keep trying to apply CPT when it doesn’t apply (thermodynamics), we’ve been down that path before, and you were told not to bring it up again since you show no interest in correcting your misconceptions

What is it you want to discuss? This isn’t a blog, it’s a discussion forum.

No reason, but I think you shouldn’t try and sell philosophy as physics. You can solve physics problems without the why; we’ve been doing it for hundreds of years now, quite successfully. And as ontology, I don’t see it.

You’ve offered your framework up as ontology. i.e. the why is philosophy. Physics tells you how the universe behaves. Physics equations have no inherent units attached to them. The only requirement is that you use a consistent set, once you start solving them.

Yes, it was something like every equation drops the readership in half

I should clarify - I doubt little that’s covered in the book has changed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_Time A part of the book is historical, so surely nothing about that has changed. The rest is written at a popular level (the only equation is E=mc^2), so there wouldn’t be a lot of detail that corresponds to advancements since the mid-80’s. New discoveries, sure, so while Hubble showing galaxies is breathtaking and allows us to refine cosmology, the basics given in the book are the same.

I read it back then, so I don’t recall much about it, but I doubt the physics involved has changed all that much.

It depends on where it hits. I don’t think states all have the same level of preventative measures in place. Florida gets hit the most and has the highest incidence of areas with D and F ratings. The risk is to coastal and adjacent areas, and that’s basically all of Florida

I particularly like the Acknowledgments section

Pathway Machine has been banned for being an insufferable troll

In a different context an independent researcher could just be someone unaffiliated with the company or institution presenting a finding. But here I think it means little other than being a self-bestowed honorary title.

Not sure how agreeing with it makes it propaganda and ideology. Is it propaganda and ideology to agree that objects fall at an acceleration of about 9.8 m/s^2 at the earth’s surface, owing to gravity? (that’s a rhetorical question) But the wording concerns me, since rule 2.12 says “We expect arguments to be made in good faith. Honest discussions, backed up by evidence when necessary. Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling.” Thus far I see an agenda and an evidence-free appeal to science being dogmatic. Argument by etymology falls under the above objection, too (argument by distraction). Why should the origin of the word matter? What it means is what’s important.

That’s one advantage of dismantling the creationist stance that it's all literally true - there is no picking and choosing. As far as discussion here goes, a claim like “Plenty of room for Noah's family as well as for all the animals and their food.” can’t just be asserted - there’s plenty of science involved that can be used to analyze this (and the associated issues that have been pointed out). Not a problem, unless you’re somebody who isn’t interested in science and doesn’t defend the claim. Then it becomes soapboxing, which is against the rules.

Recommended budget percentage, maybe? Or budgeting guidelines? https://nomoredebts.org/budgeting/budgeting-guidelines But some numbers don’t translate well to that; some things cost what they cost, and you can’t do with e.g. less food or less heat if your income drops. (also, food under 6%? US median income is around $80k, which would be $400 a month for food. An average family of four spends at least twice that) There’s some point as income rises where you have disposable income, can add discretionary expenditures, and other percentages drop.

Any equation can be written that way. F=ma can be written as F/ma = 1 This is just preference; equality is a useful concept. In solving problems the equation might need to be rearranged anyway But nobody needs to indulge another’s preference or OCD or whatever. How do you measure beta? Pedagogy might be a separate question but it’s an important one. You’re giving ontology a greater emphasis but I don’t see what’s revealed by your approach.

Remember that you came here, i.e. nobody sought you out, and if any hints of this have popped up it’s because you instigated it. I think we’re waiting for the first confirmed & supported example of this. Nobody here can control what has been said elsewhere, nor do we have to answer for anyone’s else’s individual opinion or arguments.

The different order is the sticking point. You can’t e.g. have plants created before man, and after man. My experience is on the USENET group talk origins in the 1990s Don’t call them atheists. People, maybe?