dimreepr

Indeed but as mentioned by others there are way more than just five; the origin of five senses was first suggested in the early middle ages. We’ve moved on since then and this is a science forum, so it’s required to point out such mistakes whatever the intention of the OP. The senses are innately subjective, for instance, a professional surfer may struggle on a pushbike or changing direction whilst sprinting, all require balance but which is better? As an aside, I'm with Phi: This deserves it's own topic.

Presumably the light can’t be stopped using this method, which would suggest there is a lower limit.

How does one visualise the sense of balance or hunger?

That’s like saying whatever speed I’m doing is my speed, which is, of course, true but it doesn’t answer the question.

Perhaps a little of topic but what is the theoretical slowest speed of light?

Or just because.

Indeed but the question was why; perhaps you have a better explanation?

Much like we can't reason with someone who doesn't understand what a conspiracy theory is.

You have merely seen different atmospheric conditions; unless you’re ignorant of the science that disproves this particular conspiracy theory and blindly show you’re misunderstanding of the term “cognitive dissonance”.

Why is the speed of light a constant? Just because...

The richest person isn't who has the most but is content with what they have.

We’re all subject to our personal culture; a wise person understands that, those who aren't wise decides people aren’t real.

You have food, water, shelter and an internet connection; maybe you’re richer than you think. It’s OK to want more, it’s not OK to be jealous of those that do. Looking at the negative can only hurt you.

The literature isn't confusing but your conclusions are.

Hmmmm... OK.... So we agree to agree? I'm confused? Edit/ cross posted/ @ shelagh,

Maybe the prediction is correct but then we have more than a decade to prepare for the possibility that the prediction turns out to be false. But then you don’t seem to believe in predictive models, so why this one?

Snoke did say his training was to be completed.

Not, whilst we can control what we do to our atmosphere, we can’t possibly influence the Sun; maybe that will happen, maybe not, it changes nothing in this debate.

I doubt many people would have any idea, me included, so why not accept this system as equally viable and add a few quirks that enhance your storyline?

Either don’t ignore them or don’t post; if they make valid points why would you put them on your ignore list; if you can’t refute their point then you’ve lost the debate, if you can then why ignore them?

Our seasons are due to the moons stabilising effect, keeping the Earths tilt between 23 and 26 degrees, in the system you propose, without a moon, seasons would have little meaning; with a moon then I would imagine it’s tides that would be most affected.

If the climate is affected by humans, and it is, then of course they can, just for once please answer the £$%*&* questions.

If politicians admit there’s a problem despite a potential negative fiscal impact, then we’re probable already up to our necks in the midden, try adapting to that.

You’re the one showing a lack of respect for the natural world unless you think polluting it to this extent is reasonable. http://www.frenship.us/cms/lib3/TX01917862/Centricity/Domain/1622/China%20Air%20pollution.pdf Maybe you should try adapting to starvation.

Let’s try a different approach, since you don’t see the benefits of creating a better world. Think of humanity as jay walking with a blind fold, when the only things on the road was horse and carts it was relatively safe; now we’re playing the same game but continually adding more and faster cars; at some point in the future our luck will run out if we don’t take the blind fold off and use the crossing properly.