Phi for All

First, congratulations on spotting a professional using popular science techniques to create unnecessary controversy. "Blindly accept" is a bit intellectually dishonest, imo, for a professional physicist talking about Einstein, or any other scientists. That's not how the methodology works, and Kaku knows it, but his audience may not. And Einstein's infinities are the fault of the precision of our maths, and aren't supposed to represent true infinite force or heat or density, so it's kind of shady to say that part of Einstein's theory makes no sense. On galactic scales, the universe is homogenous (the same basic structure) and isotropic (the same in all directions), so this may be what he's referencing. I've never heard another professional physicist claim the universe was finite or infinite, and in fact the discussions here so far confirm we just can't know right now. Our observable universe is finite, but the entire thing may not be.

Yet something tells me that substantially prolonged life might be different. The average human understands extravagance, and may even be used to heartless behavior from the wealthy when it comes to life style, but knowing your whole life could be ten times longer if "the haves" weren't so greedy seems too great a lure. People risk incarceration already because of wealth gaps, and I think an equally big gap in life expectancy would be much worse. Life is just that important to the living. Maybe I should just leave it that I wouldn't want to live forever if some people wanted to but weren't allowed.

WRT beer in a bar, the word "discard" means pouring it anywhere EXCEPT someone's mouth. You may have found an exploitable loophole.

If you can't make it available for everyone, and only the wealthy can afford it, I think most folks would view that differently than not getting to party on a yacht or eat caviar whenever you want. If the rich get to also live forever, I think the not-rich might resent that in a whole different way. I like Peterkin's idea of staying the same age physically for the rest of your normal life. Not more time for everyone to stress the planet's resources, but more time in a youngish body to enjoy our lives. I can appreciate how experience and knowledge have changed my perspective throughout my life, but living through an aging body is only teaching me tolerance for other people's aging bodies. If none of us had to go through it, I don't think our perspectives would be diminished in the least.

Are you saying this agreement is always for the same child? Because more often than not, there is a right and a wrong stance in disagreements between children. I would hope the parents know the difference between that and mere conflicting opinions. I think it was Russell Peters the comedian who pointed out that, if you have two kids and one of them falls down the stairs, your reaction as a parent depends which one it is. One of them will make you jump out of your chair and rush to make sure they're all right. If it's the other one, you shake your head and roll your eyes first before levering yourself out of the chair to saunter over and see what the hell they did this time. You love them both equally, but you know them well, too.

This is the real key, isn't it? This exfilist/antinatialist/promortalist stance assumes all suffering is the same, rather than on a spectrum like most human conditions.

This is about accumulated human knowledge, and learning it in the proper order to make YOUR best use of it. A successful curriculum is what schools offer students, and access to immediate human resources when there's something you don't understand. Think of school and what you learn there as your "toolbox", the basic information you need to make informed decisions. And self-learning is great too! Using other sources (Khan Academy leaps to mind, always) on top of what you're learning in school is a great way to challenge yourself and find areas of interest in your studies. We've had other threads about online study if you want to do a Search. Discussing specifics about a subject with other interested folks is a great way to learn as well. We specialize in science discussion here, and I would encourage you to ask questions if there's anything you want more knowledge about. The members here are amazing in their diverse knowledge, and more than willing to help everyone involved in the conversations sharpen their reasoning tools.

I'm preparing the OP for a thread on defending basic human decency as extreme nationalism clashes with increasing globalization. When it's open, I hope we can continue the conversation that's obviously off-topic here.

! Moderator Note No, we won't be referring to a person as "thing" in our discussions. Civility is still our most important rule.

I was never in the Navy, but my brother was, and I've spent a lot of time on the deep sea. It's nasty, unwarranted, and tasteless to make such references about people trapped in a damaged vessel out in the void. Those folks are far from help and most likely about to die, and the fact that you chose the words so carefully makes it worse, imo. There's nothing ironic about the dangers faced when you're beyond assistance and taking on water/losing O2. Only the awful part is true. It seems I wasn't the only one to take exception at your carefully chosen words. While I completely agree that orbital debris continues to be a huge problem for our offplanet interests, I'm perhaps a bit sensitive when it comes to treating those in deep waters/outer space as humans from Earth first, and ignore nationality in the case of life-threatening emergencies. If we want to maintain the peaceful uses of outer space, we need to respect what it takes to get there and get back safely.

Wrecked space vessels are much like wrecked sea vessels. Very little hope of surviving, so I find your "awful irony" more awful than ironic. Does this mean you wouldn't want to help them if that happened? What would that mean for the Outer Space Treaty?

Because I never listen, and think what I have to say is more important?

That's what I was thinking. It seems too small a part for any decorative grooving, so perhaps the groove is for a string or wire.

A preacher on a discussion forum is nothing but a megaphone. I prefer conversing around a table, but the preacher wants to jump on top and tell us only their side. In all my time here, there has NEVER been a preacher who is a good teacher, imo. Good teachers listen AND talk.

And that's the point being made here, that in circumstances where the BBT is applicable, it's not vague and incomplete, which is what mistermack's reply insinuated. I may be splitting hairs here, or I may have been confused with the infinity claims, but I wanted the OP to understand that BBT has nothing to do with "the origin of everything", nor is it considered to be a theory of everything.

How far have you gotten so far?

Perhaps you didn't read zapatos' reply ahead of yours, where he shows this comparison is like claiming his sourdough recipe is vague and incomplete if you apply it where it doesn't belong. Your reply seemed to cast the BBT in doubt coming after his reply.

If I were offering an alternative argument, perhaps. What I was doing instead was applying more rigor in the terms being used. BBT is NOT vague and incomplete because of infinities and "the origin of everything". Again, not applicable here. A "god in the gaps" is NOT about having to show where the god's creators came from. But perhaps you didn't mean to use a phrase so similar to "god OF the gaps", and I'm being picky. And I thought you misrepresented "current opinion" as well, but again that could be the difference between science and philosophy. My comments were to clarify in an attempt to keep more misunderstanding from forming on the part of the OP, not as an alternative argument.

The zapatos sourdough bread recipe is similarly vague and incomplete, if you expect it to clear up the riddle of how wheat is grown. IOW, BBT says absolutely, positively, adamantly, boisterously, purposely NOTHING about "the origin of everything". The theory stops where our knowledge does, just before your "riddle of infinity" is introduced. God-of-the-gaps (if that's the way you meant it) isn't a "turtles all the way down" problem, really. GotG shows why it's not a good idea to rely on supernatural explanations when you don't know something, since they keep getting squeezed out when we figure out what's happening naturally. If history continues to repeat, natural explanations will be all there is. The BBT describes the expansion and evolution of the universe from a very hot, very dense state to what we see now. It doesn't describe the beginning of everything. Every theory has a very finite area of application. None of them were ever meant to be used in every situation. They each represent our best current explanation for various phenomena, based on mathematical models that work extremely well when specifically applied. I think a lot of the infinitely bigger questions are more philosophical than scientific.

! Moderator Note Please stop, it's like fingernails on a chalk board. This doesn't meet the scientific requirements of ANY of our sections, which means it's the foundation for wasted time and typing. If you're a bot, you'll leave more evidence and we'll soon remove you. If you really think these words in this order are reasonable, then you need to read up on the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The words you think you know don't mean what you think they mean. If you're willing to learn some actual science, please read some posts, sign up for some free online classes (Khan Academy is amazing), and you'll gradually pick up on how the terminology and processes are really used. You'll be able to put the words together in ways that have meaning and clarity for others interested in mainstream science. And remember, theories are the gold standard in science. They aren't guesses; they're the most trustworthy explanations for various phenomena available. When you call something "theoretical", it's a LOT more than saying, "It may be possible".

In my experience, people who say this are looking for ways not to have to study it. Or they don't understand the maths of the LCDM model the theory is based on, and assume BBT is equally confusing, so why bother to dig deeply into it?

Is this for homework?

Their soapbox stances elevate their ears above the discussion, turning them into monologues.

! Moderator Note This doesn't belong in any Physics section, and I doubt you could support this in Speculations. I'll put it in the Lounge for now, if anyone wants to engage.

The top half looks like a bell, as studiot mentioned. Does the split there have a function, like allowing the top part of the bell to vibrate? Or perhaps a thread or wire could be passed through to secure one of the pair to another pair? Or is the seam/split purely decorative?