dimreepr

I’m not sure it would be a problem; the blocks are very lightweight and placed loosely around the oven.

Maybe this would solve your problem?

Agnosticism, for me, is a cop out. Having faith is to believe without proof. Either, you believe what science has to offer (i.e. the actual world as described using evidence) or you choose to have faith, in a world that’s ruled by bullshit.

Such arrogance is worthy of nought but contempt, as history shows.

Point taken, however, the intention was not backhanded; meaning I really don’t think we’re special in any way. Given that procreation will continue, can you really not see a problem?

I couldn’t agree more. There is no point to life, we are what we are, we have evolved intelligence; but that doesn’t necessarily equal most advanced or most complex. We are simply talking apes on an organic spaceship in a universe so vast that to imagine we are anything special is absurd. Dismiss what you will; no death would very quickly become a major problem.

A very good point and not one I'd previously considered, thank you +1. A dead end seems most likely now. CharonY, at risk of succumbing to your expert knowledge, I used the word 'alive' because of this, maybe this thread would be more productive discussing this age old question?

Seems to me this is just a case of semantics, you say society = government but this is really an over-simplification of what we see in society as a whole. You are making a huge assumption and as such it has very little justification in the real world.

Not at all, the cycle of a single government is much too short term. I’m talking about the cycle of a society as a whole, which is often many centuries. I apologise, for the ambiguity.

Obviously this is a broad analogy, but it does seem to fit the development of societies in general, although the first three requires a stretch of imagination. I have my own ideas as to the possible reasons for this, which I’ll keep to myself, for now, lest I steer the discussion. The following is an analysis, of Shakespeare’s poem, from wiki... Your thoughts?

Hmmm, nobody thought to try, thanks for pointing it out...

If the cap fits...

"Is it just coincidence?" Yes probably. I take it by "said theory" you mean The anthropic principle? If the universal laws were different, and still allowed for life, we'd simply have different technologies.

This seems to fit the bill

More evasion, which leads me to ask...

This explains nothing and it's certainly not an answer to my question, just more evasion. You say 'swansont's' description of a crackpot doesn't fit you, please, it fits like a glove...

You've basically said all this before, and you've managed to evade the basic question. I'll hold my hands up here, my question was somewhat ambiguous, so let me try to reduce the ambiguity. You say all three of kepler's laws are violated. Here are the laws in brief (copied from wiki): 1. "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of two foci." 2. "A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time." 3. "The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit." In what way are each of the above violated? For instance how exactly is a planets orbit different to how explained above?

Which of Kepler's laws will be violated? and how?

According to current thinking the 'Aether' doesn't exist (no evidence). You say you've answered all questions yet my very simple question "How do you know the maths, by Ma and Wang, is correct?" is yet to be answered. Did you even read the OP of the thread I linked to? You seem to be a prime candidate. BTW I'm very sorry I bore you and no you didn't step on my theory, much like you, I never had one. Also you can't teach something you know nothing about i.e. maths.

All you have done in this entire thread is tell everyone they're wrong and your right and yet you've provided nothing to back up these assertions; except words in the wrong language. You say the maths is done and yet you provide: no equations, no predictions and no evidence. The time is now, my friend, put up or shut up and not just with a re-iteration of your previous posts.

What part of my, very simple, analogy is tripping you up? How do you know the maths, done by Ma and Wang, is correct?

If I gave you the manuscript of a French novel (Knowing youdon't speak the language) and an English synopsis and asked for a translation, I know without reading, the results would be wrong. The translation you give me back would be full of inaccuracy and assumptions (of course not your fault). You have admitted you don't have the math so, essentially, the analogy extends to your thesis as the language of physics is maths.

When I came to this forum I was just like you; I had a brilliant idea that needed sharing with mainstream physics. Sadly I was wrong, as are you BTW; maybe this thread will enlighten you as to why.

Whilst I agree that we can learn to be 'happy', I have to side with zappatos on the point that emotions are part of our biological makeup and often, as suggested, hormones are produced without our conscious say so. My personal experience is, through conscious effort, this can reversed by eliminating our expectations and fears (except in, some, genuine cases of bi-polaror clinical depression) and as you suggest, practice. If you're going to assert a position you have to be ready to back it up with evidence, you really can't decide, on a public forum, to dismiss genuine arguments or change the goal-posts to exclude them.

Have a look at this thread you may find it interesting and possibly parallel, though, I have to warn you I am an atheist.