Phi for All

"Your honor, I found an interesting argument contained within my briefs..."

Why should science make sense outside of humanity? It's a disciplined approach for human understanding of our observable universe. Who else should it make sense to? If you're talking about aliens discovering our science after we're extinct, I'd have to guess they'd have a way to decipher our languages. They made it all the way to Earth, and we know how much intelligence and technology that requires. If they exist but don't want to prove they exist, I think that puts us in great danger. Why do they want us to believe in them without evidence? We're pretty special when it comes to intelligent species on this planet. Why would the gods make us so smart but force us to rely on magic and superstition? Why teach us about writing books if they don't want us to observe and learn? If they exist but CAN'T prove it, then they aren't omnipotent, simple as that. If they can't do something, they're limited. If they don't exist, then science isn't affected at all, since it didn't take gods into account in the first place. Science is fine with admitting we don't know something. If the gods don't exist, then we're born, live, and die as complex organisms on a planet in one of the solar systems of a galaxy in the universe, and along the way we observe and gather information, test and experiment with everything we can so we can draw conclusions which we can also test and use to make predictions.

I meant to be facetious, but now you've got me worried about who the crawlers and bots are going to bring to us. ... are they subject to Quantum Endanglement?

This is science, so there is no "answer". An explanation is the best you'll get, but if you want one based on mainstream knowledge, you need to clarify what you mean. Are you thinking the universe has one "end" that can be the start of a chain of anything that leads to another "end" on the other... side? If your balls are spread out across the universe, why would one of them melt?

This seems like a strawman argument against something nobody else is claiming. Who said a personal god renders science useless? Does your personal god tell you not to use science? Our view? We define omnipotence as the ability to do anything, so how is that limited? If anything, it the lack of limits on omnipotence that makes many people question it.

Moderator NoteYou've stopped taking criticism on board to help your idea, and are now insisting you're right in the face of lots of pushback from professional and amateur physicists. This is preaching, or soapboxing, and our experience shows us it's pointless to try to reason with you now, since you've closed that part of your mind. You've had four pages to persuade us, and many members were happy to lend their expertise, but nobody wants to keep talking to someone who stopped listening. Thread closed, don't bring this up again.

If drinking energy drinks causes short term memory loss, imagine what drinking energy drinks would do!

Have you learned nothing from this site? Science is NEVER 100% on anything. Theory is strong because it never assumes it's got everything right. Can't you see that the very thing you're dissing is its biggest strength? Religion assumes it's 100% correct, maybe you're confusing science with that. Do you consider discussing this subject with us a "tense situation"? We actually appreciate reasoned arguments over verbal judo. You're a maths guy, right? So why do you keep using the term "logic" wrt science? Logic is for maths and philosophy. Logic is a formal process that bears little resemblance to what Mr Spock used to refer to. Are you talking about climate change with human causes, is that what you believe? What else besides the irrefutable evidence do you think will persuade deniers? Does threatening them with the Wrath of God work? I've heard people admonish Republicans lately by saying that Jesus wouldn't defund school lunches.

Moderator NoteLogin problems with the old account. CPU68 can't post anymore.

And that's what it seems like when you don't understand what people are trying to tell you. You don't seem to have studied much before leaping to guesswork and making stuff up that seems more intuitive to you. I know because you've said this: It's like you're toying with us for fun, trying to overthrow some bit of science without understanding it or even bothering to look it up for yourself. I don't think discussion with you will be meaningful for anybody,

Moderator Note Let's stick to attacking ideas, not people.

I think they're talking about having the phone in your hand up to your ear, unless the hands-free auto packages haven't made it to the UK. They may be having trouble with smartphone map applications as well. Otherwise you're right, it's not that different from talking to a passenger.

If I understand you correctly, this should be easy to model. Have there been experiments with weights and equivalent living examples to see if spacetime reacts differently to organic matter as opposed to inorganic? The abstract of the paper you mentioned: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37359083/

You should flesh this out a bit. Lots of species "think". What makes human thinking different? I'm in agreement right up to the "Land dwelling Life". Many marine species are thriving too. I'd have to know how you define "Progress" before I can agree with you. With the rest, you sound like Douglas Adams' description of how a puddle thinks the world is made just for them. Remember, we adapted to the environment, not the other way around.

That's not the way Jews and most Christians see it. The older covenants were fulfilled when Christ showed up, so the Christians started a new one based on the old one. The Jews didn't accept Jesus. Do you know any Christians who think the OT is wrong? I agree with StringJunky, religion doesn't admit mistakes, it's never wrong, and it's voice stays the same. That seems to be what faith is all about.

Then I would say their faith in their respective teachings is meaningless because both Buddhism and Hinduism practice things that are wrong. How can anyone call the caste system "right"? Coupled with the idea of ahimsa, doing no harm, this system fixes a person's place within Hindu society so they can never prosper past what is expected of them. The concept of samsara, the birth-death-rebirth cycle, can cause complacency in many people. Accepting your fate means you don't always fight for yourself very well. Add the idea of moksha, where enlightenment can only be found after death, and you have a belief system that's oppressive and stultifying, that lacks hope for THIS life. At least science can admit and then analyze their mistakes. Are religions ever wrong? Do they ever admit it? The Catholics repealed eating meat on Friday as a venial sin, but as George Carlin pointed out, there are still people in Hell doing time on the meat rap.

Sure it is, at least in the US. And in the US and France (that I know of), that's not a pancake, it's a crepe, or a blintz. Perhaps you should allow for cultural difference in naming foods. Just a thought.

My new vehicle has too many distractions. Every time I put it in reverse, the car shows me videos of people getting run over!

Moderator NoteIndeed, and now we can close this.

Moderator NoteI changed the title because it made me itch, but I didn't correct your OP. It seems like exchemist is trying though.

This supports what I've suspected, that the OP feels that flaws reflect on them personally, so they avoid any admission of being wrong about anything. They have trouble separating themselves from their idea, and it affects the way they learn. It's unfortunate, since making mistakes is part of the learning process.

This statement, bolded by me, seems extremely hypocritical.

We know enough to spot someone in deep denial. Sad because he feels less gullible? It seems pretty joyous to me. Giving credit for good things to a deity is demeaning to me. If something bad or good happens to me, the credit or blame is mine. I try not to hide from reality.

I think you should stop taking all of this personally. Misunderstanding something simply means your knowledge is flawed, so you shouldn't try to build upon it until you fix it. People do this every day without thinking it means THEY are flawed.

I don't have any, but several posters quote arguments made on such sites. I think the main problem is that, since it's mostly people who haven't taken any physics coursework, or hit a snag in their learning and started making stuff up, everyone has a different idea or explanation. You'll get people who think your idea is garbage compared to theirs, but you'll also get people who think you're a genius. You can focus only on the ones who don't give you any pushback. The only difference I see here is your perspective on criticism. Mordred gives you "proper guidance" while keeping you on track with mainstream physics. Ultimately though, he's giving you the same critique as everyone else is, but is more willing to let you expand on your idea, hopefully so you can see the flaws better. Most of the membership doesn't have much patience with people who haven't formally studied yet insist they have some new revelation. They probably feel like a person like that should be asking questions instead of telling us how it should be. I don't know what you do for a living, but imagine someone coming in with no experience and they start telling you how to do your job. What do you do when you know their ideas won't work because of things they don't know about the job? What if they keep insisting? Again, your perspective is flawed. Science needs precision in terminology. They seem "inconsistent" to you because you're just learning them. You use a word until you misuse it, then someone corrects you. You see this as dirtying your thread, but it's members trying to do what Mordred did. They only use strong words when you keep insisting on ignoring the mainstream explanations they're trying to give you. Same with the negative rep, it's because you keep insisting you're right while ignoring others. When you go outside accepted physics, be prepared to have some words used about you that are also outside accepted physics.