Leaderboard

You wrote "cooperation at every level from the cellular to the eco-system." That is the conflation I was referencing. That isn't a description of both competitive and cooperation behaviors being favored. It is a messy contextually misuse of how national selection works and the meaning of cooperation. Matters vital for an organism to live or interacting with its environment are called processes not cooperation. There are biological processes. That is a field of study. It is not useful to broaden the meaning of cooperation as you are. Cooperation has goals. Biology 101 studies the biological process. Not the pros & cons of competitiveness. Do you believe as a species Humans can exist without cooperation with one another? Do you believe as a species Humans can exist without competitiveness towards one another?

It’s spelled Voltron

I don't think Melania writes her public statements or takes much interest in them. Melania hasn't shown any interest in politics at all that I can perceive. Doesn't appear to be altruistic in anyway. She looks like a hostage a lot of the time. We know the White House has speech writers and publicists. I assume "Be best" came from those writers. Writers have a more strategic way of looking at things. Be best is Innocuous enough to mean whatever one want to project on to it. I do not think it is specifically meant to mean anything. I think it's meant to be brief, cute, repeatable, and so on. I think this thread has probably already given Be best more thought than Melania has given it.

Sorry for the condescending tone. Terminology is vital if you want to get your idea understood. Here is a suggestion, pick one small piece of your ideas and take some time to write it out. If someone questions an idea like "energy has direction", let's discuss it and make sure we have the same definition of 'energy' and 'direction'.

It returns a DataFrame with the data from the provided prices variable and column names names 'Jan', 'Feb and ,'Mar'. A god place to get information about Pandas DataFrame parameters is the documentation, for instance https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/reference/api/pandas.DataFrame.html What output? The empty line? That is expected? The line header_dataframe=pd.DataFrame(prices,columns=['Jan','Feb','Mar']) is a declaration. Maybe you intended to execute more code? The page you linked to have more code and more outputs than you have provided. Tricky to know what you consider the issue to be here. Anyway, next issue Do you mean in the line: "11 77 68 70)" ? A bug in that version of Pandas? A mistake in the web page? I do not know but the page you link to says: Python version 3.6.5 (v3.6.5:f59c0932b4, Mar 28 2018, 16:07:46) [MSC v.1900 32 bit (Intel)] Pandas version 0.23.3 Matplotlib version 2.2.2 A test on: Python version 3.6.9 (default, Jul 17 2020, 12:50:27) [GCC 8.4.0] Pandas version 1.0.5 Matplotlib version 3.2.2 results in a last line: 11 77 68 70 So no parentheses at the end using newer versions.

It makes you look lazy, not crazy. You've developed a narrative that allows you to reject anything you deem too difficult or technical ("I think in 3d objects and complex emotions, not words") and substitute it for something you've made up by intuition and guesswork. Somewhere along the line, you got the idea that everything in science has to make intuitive sense to you before you'll accept it. It's pretty common in the age of the internet, where people learn science in the form of popular articles trying to get you hooked on "the mysteries". It's all too easy to take various bits of trustworthy information and stitch them together, filling the gaps with stuff you've made up based on a limited science education. ! Moderator Note I would take offense if I thought other members were mocking you. Please remember that part of the scientific methodology is removing unnecessary elements that might taint the findings of your experiments (there's nothing personal or mocking in correcting your use of common definitions). Ideas in science are meant to be reviewed with rigor to find their flaws, so please don't take replies helping you shore up the foundations of your idea as mockery. Isn't this why you came to a discussion site like this?

Thousands of hours thinking about a physical problem without taking much input from experts' and known facts normally end up being thousands of hours down the drain. It's actually a very bad symptom. You're trying to re-write hundreds of years of progress in science. Be careful with how much time you spend thinking on your own. The best physicists spend thousand upon thousands of hours studying (or using) physics they can claim no authorship of, and only tens of hours thinking of new ideas. Most physicists spend their lives skillfully using other people's theories. That's how it works. So it's the other way around. Thousands of hours of study culminate in tens of hours of inspiration at best. Something like that. Again, I'm trying to be helpful.

If it is positively curved the parallel lines will obviously converge at distance. Expansion has the effect of 'smoothing out' curvature; curvature does not cause, or give the illusion of, expansion. The measured curvature is exceedingly small, almost flat, indicating that the Universe may be much, much larger than the observable universe. Can't access the actual paper but it would be interesting to see the error in the curvature data, INow.

We live in four dimensions. Time/light is the first dimension. The basic foundation of all reality is time/wave/frequency. These properties all exist in the first dimension. Photon's only come into existence (for us in the fourth dimension) when they interact with our dimension. They are the ultimate time travellers. In the absense of light (time) linear velocity shifts down to a lower dimension and starts to take on the qualities of a wave/frequency. All higher dimensions drop one level and assume the properties of the lower dimension. A particle drops out of the fourth dimensions and becomes a three dimensional being. It's linear velocity starts to take on the qualities of the first dimension (wave/frequency). This is an explantation of the dual nature of particle. By removing light the particle loses it's foundation. It is forced into a lower dimension, dropping out of the fourth dimension and it's linear velocity becomes a wave/frequency. It assumes the properties of Time itself, thereby becoming timeless. All manner of phenomenon can be understood if you consider that by removing light you are removing the foundation of time from the four dimensional reality. Everthing that exists within two dimensions and higher will drop one dimension. Whatever moved as a circular velocity becomes a linear velocity and everything that was a linear velocity becomes a wave/frequency displaying an interference pattern. All matter retains its superposition properties (i.e. undefined) until light is re-introduced and all dimensions are raised to a higher level again. They emerge into the fourth dimension.