Leaderboard

Who is correct? This is a current dispute between a government agency and environmental group about how best to limit the spread of fires. Who has the most compelling argument? My bias is towards the enviro position: thinning down improves the parameters for good combustion, and therefore spread.

The chemical and microbiological specifications for tap water are generally more stringent than for bottled water.

Well, if you are wondering about that, perhaps you need to figure out what neurodivergence means in a given context. Is there for example a classification system? A second thing to look into is whether any of the trait scores correlate with that measure.

Flattery will get you nowhere You told people ”read the article” and we have a rule against such laziness. ! Moderator Note Don’t bring the topic up again. On the one hand that’s too bad because it seems interesting, but on the other hand you weren’t engaging, so nothing lost except the trolling

He didn't need to; it wasn't part of his ministry: he was just doing the host of the wedding feast a favour. (It was the popes who later turned wine into his blood, because he had one time used that as symbol of commitment to his disciples.) Jesus had nothing to to do with Muhammad: he was not even in the same society that Muhammad later wanted to reform. Jesus was looking a whole different set of problems, from a different point of view, in a different nation, in a different time.

! Moderator Note It's clear, after 3 pages, that improving your idea won't help it pass our criteria for a speculative concept. You can't explain it properly so anyone else can understand, and you don't seem to acknowledge the lack of methodology that would make your concept possible. Too much magic, not enough science. Thanks to all (especially Ghideon) who took the time to help. I'm closing this since it doesn't meet the rules requirements for the Speculations section. Please don't bring this subject up again on this site.

Lol alright Let me tell you something swansont, before you close the thread for no reason. You are one of the worst thinkers I've encountered. I've seen you're pretty active on this forum, but all your comments are basically condemning threads for arbitrary reasons which justifies you closing them. You rarely, if ever, offer any intelligent or creative thoughts to a discussion. You seem to enjoy wielding your mod power more than having proper scientific discourse. Shameful. Scienceforums.net would be a better place without you, sadly. You have no idea how to moderate, and thus the forum suffers from your incompetence. Thanks for nothing dork I have quoted the necessary passages, and have also written my own definition and explanation of energy rate density as the complexity metric. Multiple times. I was asked for a source. I presented a source. Then I'm told I can't rely on the source for my definitions. What? As far as your above description, that is simply one perspective if the universe. Another scientifically valid perspective is complexification, which is easily observed, has been defined many times and a metric for measuring it given. You even doubted that one of the excerpts was even from the cited article! What the fuck bro, am I lying or something. You could've confirmed it in 2 seconds, but you couldn't even do that much.