Phi for All

If I recognized that, it would make the word "all" meaningless to me. Except you've given us no calculations that are understandable. Even this sentence has no real meaning. What's a "human time", and how short is very, very, very short? Are you using some kind of religious definition of "heavens and the Earth", here on a science discussion forum? Does your definition include other solar systems and galaxies?

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/eggs/shell-eggs-farm-table You may have some trouble incorporating this information into your present accumulated knowledge, since it contradicts something you've come to believe unreasonably. It's worth trying to overcome our own cognitive biases though, even though our inclination is to believe even more strongly in the false assumption.

Before you base any kind of spiritual belief in the BBT, you should make sure you understand it. In the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model the Big Bang Theory is based on, the maths don't need any gods to be credible. The nature works out well without the supernatural.

Mostly because you made it up based on your limited science knowledge (no offense), so it seems like it's absolutely PERFECT for you. Does that make sense? Any time you try to explain something, your explanation can only be as complete as your current knowledge. Learn more science, and your explanations will more accurately match what we observe in nature.

It's a mistake thinking this way. The universe is everything. It can't be "enclosed". There is no point where the universe ends and "nothing" begins. If you're describing the universe, there's nothing outside of it. If you were describing a nightclub you visited, there's no part of the nightclub that is outside the nightclub, by its very definition.

With so many different options available, it can be difficult to know which businesses that need to trap grease will know which treatment will be most effective for their specific needs.

I concur that words are very important in the quality of our communication, and I'm sure that you can appreciate that there can only be a "complete absence of things" in certain contexts, and that they aren't always the same as "nothing".

I've always hated the concept of the mythological "eye" that needs to be plucked out in order to receive wisdom. They did this in Norse mythology too. It's always seemed like decreasing your ability to actually observe nature in exchange for some kind of spiritual enlightenment, which is usually undefined and impervious to reason.

The word is being used several ways. "Nothing" can escape from a black hole. Empty space is filled with "nothing". There is "nothing" outside of our universe. In each case though, "nothing" means "a complete absence of things", and it's been pointed out that in some instances "nothing" may not be possible.

! Moderator Note If you quote an article from the Science Times, you MUST give them a citation when posting their work in your response, otherwise it's plagiarism. https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/42862/20230317/powerful-tools-to-enhance-and-assist-human-work-chatgpt.htm

What do you think of the COVID handshake, done with the elbows? I've found most consider it unique and interesting enough that they don't mind participating, and you can always claim to be erring on the side of caution ("I've been sneezing a lot this morning, let's be safe"). Perhaps we need to start introducing ourselves with our pronouns and preferred physical greeting. "I'm Phi, he/him, handshake, great to meet you!"

"Bang" was an unfortunate choice of descriptors. It was actually an expansion of space rather than an explosion into space. And if you want to talk about "THE PLACE", you need to clarify whether you're talking about a specific bit of matter orbiting other bits of matter (like a sun or a planet which are always moving) or a specific coordinate in spacetime where matter may be encountered (usually given with three spatial coordinates and a time component).

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. We want to see some evidence that supports your concepts and led to your conclusions. Break it down in pieces so we can analyze that based on what we observe in nature. For instance, energy is a property of a thing, not a thing itself, so it can't be created or destroyed. Instead the thing the energy is a property of is changed into a different form, so "ENERGY CREATED" is NOT what's happening. Does your idea still hold up knowing this?

Just a suggestion, but here we don't attack people, we attack ideas. If someone insults you personally, please report the post. If someone criticizes your idea, address the critique.

Not sure what your point is here, but current theories are constantly being tested and updated. Any addition to what we consider to be our best current explanations MUST follow scientific methodology (not "required to be justified"). I think you're talking about "disparaging" when you say "put down every new idea", but that's not true. Your idea is being disparaged because it's wrong, and goes against what we already know, mainly because you insist on speculating while your science knowledge has many gaps in it. IOW, nobody is saying your idea is wrong because it's new. It's wrong for all the reasons listed previously. Not sure how many times you have to hear it before it sinks in, but science isn't looking for the TRUTH. That's far too subjective. Science is looking for the best supported explanations to various phenomena. Like evolution, science has no ULTIMATE GOAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have you had work done on your balls?

! Moderator Note Please do NOT post photos of your balls!

! Moderator Note This isn't a section for speculation. Especially on the topic of autism, let's stick to peer-reviewed studies and leave fiction alone. I'm closing this thread.

therammo, you started a thread called "will we live again?" that was still open but hadn't had a new post in over six years. I've just closed it, but I can't delete it. It's not "running" any more.

As we explained to you last year when you made this request, your posts aren't covered under the GDPR. We've removed personal information before for other members, so we have no problems complying with requests like that even without the GDPR. Your explanation was that it bothers you that your posts are "still up and running", but that's the nature of discussion forums. They remain to teach those who read them in the future, and removing your part in those discussions makes them incomprehensible. We want to help, but other members were involved in those discussions too, and it would be unfair to waste everyone's efforts.

You're welcome! Perhaps we have different definitions of "very comprehensive", but I wouldn't describe an article that way if it didn't address my concerns over poor yields when using their product. Are you looking to add other voices to your complaint about their product before contacting them directly?

"Looks comprehensive" is an admission that you didn't read it, which seems odd if you really want an answer. Should we assume you haven't contacted Promega about this problem with their product?

Has it really? Or have we instead seen a shifting of focus as those requirements change? Is it a reduction in mental agility to use a computer or calculator if that technology gives you the time and ability to figure out much more complex problems? I too lament the shift from reading written words to watching videos of people saying those words. Right now, someone still has to write those words in the first place, but AI shows us that reading is losing some of its value when you may be wasting your time reading some bot-cobbled rhetoric. But I also think this is a sentiment every generation has, that they're losing essential skills because our inventions make hard things easier, and the reality is that we just use the extra time we save to focus on new hard things to figure out.

As I understand it, a pope can only make infallible statements about church doctrine while holding office. It's not like everything they say is without error once they become pope.

And if that happens, hopefully you'll understand that it was because your concepts were shown to be wrong because they disagree with what we observe, and not because we're trying to preserve the memory of Einstein.