Phi for All

! Moderator Note And once again we see zero support for an aether. No meaningful scientific discussion can happen about an idea without evidence in support. If "proving God" is now your goal, it's so far removed from your OP as to be a completely different topic (which you'll also need support for on this site). This thread is closed, please don't bring it up again.

If they haven't been able to communicate at all in 5000 years, they probably wouldn't be able to understand each other now. This could be an interesting plot point, because now they both have to go back through their records to find a common tongue (circa, I don't know, early 21st century Earth?). The power of evolution in fiction is creating some kind of pressure that would cause a certain trait to be selected for that you, as the author, want the humans to have. One group has webbed fingers and toes because the cataclysm forced the population into the oceans hundreds of generations ago, for instance. Behavior, again, is something you can influence as the writer. Have something occur that causes a population to behave predominantly in a certain way, and you can "imagineer" the kind of society you need for your story. Even for hard science-fiction, if you give us a reasonable scenario to explain why people are the way they are, several hundred generations of changes in allele frequency and some cataclysmic selective pressures can create a not-insignificantly changed population.

Are you referring to your mischaracterization of "law" as swansont used it? Remember when you called it "ambiguous"? It's the only thing I've offered any argument about, and you seem extremely reluctant to focus on that. You're almost... rigid in your need to sweep it under the rug, as it were.

No, it's not ad hominem. If I tried to argue that we shouldn't consider your position because of your personality, or your behavior in other threads, THAT would be ad hom. I argued against your particular abuse of "law" without any personal conclusions. The remark about the competence studies was merely a side observation.

"I think you meant to say 'baseball" instead of 'ball', because, of course, there are many balls that have nothing to do with baseball." Actually, it seems like an EXACT match. But I understand your reluctance to admit it.

Sure I can, since it's easily demonstrable that context in a discussion is the responsibility of all parties. If you asked me for an answer to a question about baseball, and I told you "if the ball is caught by an opposing player, the hitter is 'out'", the context should be understood by all. What you did with swansont was the equivalent of telling me, "You should have said 'baseball' instead of ball, because you could be talking about any of the other kinds of balls". But you helped set the context with your initial question, which was specifically about baseball, and no other kind of "ball" sport. Now, of course, you're just making it worse by doubling down on this ineffective approach to learning. Lots of ranting, no science discussion, no learning.

These are actually better frozen. Put them on a stick, lick them a couple of times, then throw them away and eat the stick. Good fiber.

You created the context with your original question, which asked for a physics answer. To pretend otherwise is more intellectual dishonesty. Your arguments are consistently specious, and you seem more interested in airing resentments than in learning anything. It's a real shame. This makes it look like you have a big chip on your shoulder wrt those who understand things you don't. You also seem to argue very much like the participants in the Dunning-Kruger studies, who showed a marked tendency to overestimate their own abilities and knowledge.

So a working physicist answers your question, "How would you refer to the dynamics of thermal systems? Laws? Forces? Rules? Theories?", and when he makes a clarification about "laws", you think he was being "ambiguous", and may have been talking about a non-scientific definition of "laws"?! That's the most intellectually dishonest stance I've heard from you today.

The part where the cat jumps through the paper-covered hoop must've been tough. Cats don't usually eat what they can't smell, and don't jump when they can't see the landing. They do gain confidence over time, but a "leap of faith" seems beyond them (unless there were holes in the paper the audience couldn't see but the cat could use to make out the landing spot?). Once they see it's OK they can repeat it, but the first time through the paper has got to be difficult.

! Moderator Note Wow. That's a LOT of bad faith arguments there. You wasted a LOT of time on that. Thread closed. Don't bring it up again.

! Moderator Note If you think you're being mocked, as opposed to having your non-mainstream ideas attacked, please use the Report Post function. Members are allowed to attack ideas, but not the people who have them. This is an important distinction, and dovetails well with our rules on civility.

! Moderator Note This is unacceptable. If you don't understand the question, like studiot, you can ask for clarification. I'm sure you'll get a more reasonable treatment. If you can't explain your idea and answer questions about it in a civil manner, we're done here. It's all up to YOU, Mitko Gorgiev. Do better or I'll close this.

! Moderator Note Then you'll need some kind of overview, or I can lock the thread while you put the evidence together. Otherwise, there's no science to discuss.

We always have to remember that puppies have instincts the toddlers don't. A puppy will freeze when mama bites its head as a warning for intolerable behavior. A toddler resists, so mama dog bites harder to make her point, which makes the child resist harder. Bad wiring going on there.

Dachsund's are built for using the keyboard. Maybe we should call the Australian authorities and have them check on beecee?

Win what though? For companionship, both dogs and cats have their place, but you can't really compare them. Their overall demeanor is completely different, and both offer different kinds of comfort. I've had both, and love them for different reasons. There is something about a cat's independence that makes it more significant when they approach you for attention. Dogs are VERY focused on what's going on with the pack, and more trainable because of it, imo. We expect dogs to do as they're told, and can rely on them for actual work, but for those who just want a companion, it's hard to pass up the purr.

! Moderator Note Which now has its own thread here.

The energy and matter were all there, in densities and temperatures we're able to evaluate once they aren't infinite. Technically, the space is there as well, waiting to expand. And you're only assuming time begins at t=0. We can't know that time existed or not before that. The maths in the LCDM model disagree with you, in other words. You're incorrect about their mathematically expressible value.

VenusPrincess has been suspended for two weeks for continued abusive behavior in discussion. If you can't attack the ideas, don't attack the people.

! Moderator Note And this will NEVER be an appropriate response on this forum. Your lack of civility is unacceptable, but this is over the top. Goodbye.

! Moderator Note This is far from acceptable for this section, and the entire site. Don't EVER try to post things like this here again. This is a science discussion forum.

Flying cars could only be used by the general public if they were automated, and if you're going to have automated transportation, there are much more efficient means than flying individual vehicles.

No offense, but that's some mangled reasoning there. The videos aren't what's important here, the knowledge is. Reading is faster, and you have a better chance at picking up flaws and misunderstandings from the written word. And NOBODY said anything about not having time to research online, you just made that up as an easy thing to knock down. Again, no offense, but I can't help but think you've been booted from so many forums that you now tend to show up and throw up EVERYTHING you want to talk about all at once, since you suspect you won't have long at any one site. Can I make a suggestion? Before your attitude gets you a bunch more negative rep points for rudeness and snobbery, how about you pick JUST ONE of the things you'd like to talk about, start a new thread on it, give a brief opening post to start us out, and encourage some conversation about it, rather than trying to climb a box with a megaphone? I think you'll be amazed at the difference in the responses. Many people here have proposed many of your individual points.

We can NOT predict the physical state of the universe at t=0. When we try, the densities and temperatures become infinite, which is usually an answer that tells us our maths have failed.