Phi for All

! Moderator Note Is this working for you, are you getting the answers you need? The questions aren't in good English. Can you translate from your native language? Also, your questions are about a very detailed subject (how the brain calculates math problems) that requires detailed knowledge and detailed answers. Discussion works best after you've studied a subject, and it can be difficult when used to teach the subject.

If "the environment" has only one person in it, it's limited to the knowledge of that one person. Be careful you aren't making assumptions based on a single person's knowledge. That's not how science works.

The opportunity to learn from who?

You'd think, but you're showing us this isn't true.

You should look at news sources other than the ones you're currently using if you think this statement is correct. Or it could be that you're using metrics others aren't using. For instance, our economic growth rate has been positive despite economists predicting the opposite due to inflation.

QFT.

I perceive this as an anti-benefit. Your god is supposed to be all-powerful, all-knowing, yet it makes us imperfectly and condemns us for not overcoming these imperfections?! That doesn't seem like a wise, benevolent demeanor. It seems like what a child would do when it's not getting enough attention.

It's bigger on the inside.

If we're looking into the engineering behind certain verses, can we figure out how one could become a pinball wizard playing by sense of smell?

If you only keep the parts you can eat, then the buck might tuck if there's no other swag in the bag. Or what if it's really a TARDIS bag?

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum, not a blog, not a pulpit. We need some direction for conversation, unless you simply want others to critique these assertions you're making.

This seems so hypocritical to me, since the Abrahamic god will send you to hell for eternity while it's loving all of us equally. But this is the number one benefit to god imo; one can use it to manipulate the fearful and ignorant.

These are old tactics being employed using modern techniques. Hold up a strawman, tell the people that the strawman is responsible for all their woes, and let the people beat the crap out of the strawman. It's all to take focus off the real problem, the uber wealthy and their unearned, unethical, and unbelievably selfish manipulation of our society.

I like this part, for a T-shirt or a tombstone. The rest sounds like your microphone wasn't working at the start the joke.

There are over a dozen warning signs of fascism, and most can be spun in the fascist's favor. For instance, when Trump banned travel from Muslim countries under the guise of protecting the nation from terrorists entering the country, many applauded him. In actuality what he did was unconstitutional and set a precedent for tossing out our democratic republic values, something that's on the list of warning signs of fascism. Extremists, by their very nature, tend to go all out. They talk passionately to anyone who will listen, they get the signatures necessary, they run for office, they get elected. Unfortunately, extremist politicians don't care about representing their constituents. They have agendas instead. If the GOP gains control of the White House and Congress in 2024, Americans won't need to worry about representative voting in 10 years. I'm not a big fan at all of the liberal/conservative labels. I think the real factor here is corporate power, which has methodologies for dealing with whatever label we choose to put on something. Right now, there's no incentives for the uber-wealthy to do anything other than sit on tons of cash while making the most profit ever, and get ready to gobble when others fail. What exactly is it about identity politics and social issues that make you think liberal policies are bad for them? In a representative democracy, don't you think the government owes something to the citizens who drive the economy, make up its military, and obey the country's laws? What is so awful about defending social spending that it would drive you to vote for a fascist?

DienHuzen has been banned. Thank you for showing us your hate agenda so early on, you barely wasted any of our time at all.

! Moderator Note ... and you're real out of here!

You're still hung up on what expansion means. You say "outward", but what does that really mean when the entire universe is expanding? To move outward, you need to do that relative to something, but the universe isn't a ball floating in nothingness. It's all there is, it's everything. I think you're tricking your mind into thinking of it like a balloon that has an outer edge, expanding into some other space. It's easy to do, since there's nothing else in our experience quite like it.

Wait, are you describing religion? This is exactly the way I feel about the Abrahamic religions, that they've been a poison to our existence because they pretend to help when they mostly hurt.

I'm not sure why you think this. If I take a cubic meter of space that has no molecules of anything inside of it, you think it's outside reality? Just because a region of space has nothing in it, it still exists. And we can easily measure spacetime, and do it every day (meet me for lunch at noon tomorrow on the 1st level of the Eiffel Tower). They aren't physical objects, but they are real representations of the geometry of our universe (3 spatial dimensions, 1 temporal), so your definition lacks the degree of precision necessary to discuss this meaningfully. Thinking of space as "nothingness" isn't helpful, because it's NOT nothing (energy in any point in space still has a non-zero value). Even if a region of space has no matter in it, matter COULD pass through it, so it has to exist. The laws of physics still exist there.

This would make you extremely unethical. And fortunately, science has natural safeguards in place. People can check someone else's math, and experiments confirm when something works. It doesn't matter that you don't accept discoveries that show you past work to be wrong, because the science community will. Attacking the source rather than the science is a logical fallacy, and most scientists are trained to spot such.

I'm not interested in wading through the whole discipline to find the part you're talking about. It would be great if you could be specific. And the correlation to humans is what? What about them? What's the point you're trying to make here?

! Moderator Note Our rules require that I remove these photos. Explicit or not, we don't want a precedent set or we'd be flooded by more photos. We have a volunteer staff, and nobody needs the extra work removing spam. Don't do it again, please.

I think this is the way it is with most any subject. Before we learn, we make guesses using only what we know. Those guesses live in the gaps in our knowledge, and get forced out as we learn more and more about a subject.

How do we test for multiple universes? If we can't, is it really a theory? Besides parallel universes, does the Flash ever address the shockwave running that fast would create in front of him? If the air can't get out of his way fast enough, it's going to pile up and heat up and explode as he pushes through it.