Leaderboard

Bold and ALLCAPS are used fr emphasis. When all of the text is presented that way, it’s considered yelling.

Thank you for your reply. Note I said formal philosophers. Such as Plato, Kant and Wittgenstein. Archimedes and Bacon stood out because they embraced the formal but went further. By formal I mean those who believe that they can form a worthwhile opinion on anything and everything by sitting in their armchair and pontificating. To my way of thinking this is like taking a blind man to a known beauty spot viewpoint and asking him to describe the scenery. Something (a lot ?) will be missing; something will be wildly wrong in his description.

You appeared to cite it. Did you just make that number up? And we’re supposed to take your assertion as fact? If you answered my question, or read what Markus posted, you’d see that such pedestrian speeds are small compared to recession values of distant galaxies. Ignoring it in certain calculations is completely reasonable, e.g. when it’s smaller than uncertainties in the result. If you only know z to one or two digits for z >1 , ignoring a speed with z ~ 0.01 is not a problem, if you understand how significant digits work.

Rather than exciting speculation about exotic super heavy elements in super dense asteroids what is needed is dull and ordinary astronomical observations to get more accurate estimates of their density. As well better observations of everything else that can be determined about them - which should be standard practice, to add to the inventory of known asteroids and their characteristics. Confirmation of unusual characteristics would give cause to investigate further, including with probes. If very unusual it would be very good cause. But without that confirmation it is like an anomalous experimental result - worth finding out why but it seems much more likely to be mistake than breakthrough.

Chinglish...

Move those somewhere in business or ethics

You can't even define light. If you could find where I did in my comments you'd have the edge on me in physics. I only know the graph to define when and how in my untorturable mind.

If one knows the physics He can do things with graphical coordinates that can tool the microrobotics that control the program-user interface to do the right moves. I've demonstrated that motion can be just as accurate as a UR3 if I'd had more time to disassemble the device "If I have C=1 and A=<1 anything I do has a small probability of falling onto an exact degree. .99^2 + B^2 = 1, B=sqrt(1-.9801)=0.14106735970. sin(1deg)=.01745240643, for what I just got 1/x=.01745/0.14107=0.1237 so 1=0.1237x, so x=1/0.1237=8.08407437348deg". Keeping me at a disadvantage won't do you any favors in the long run.

Understanding duress or the need for pain in the body is the false sense of hope it gives the ___ Understanding the emotion of hubris is derived from the coming of it's opposite.

Below is a further elaboration of what I posted regarding my theory of complexity Imbalance and the theory of complexity What is sustainable development if we do not understand the universe? Why is it about reality that has both given so much to us and also presented us with a difficult problem to solve? Well, for me the answer is in what I call imbalance and my general theory of evolution, which I call the theory of complexity. Why imbalance? Well, because we haven’t unified physics with absolute certainty to say we can unify everything in the whole universe in something more fundamental, or to put in a different way, we don’t know what the singularity the whole universe came out for looks like with absolute certainty but of course, for the purposes of the theory of complexity or the general theory of evolution, that is not necessary. Imbalance to be is just an increase in concentration in mass and energy. The universe according to experts has a total energy of zero because they proved that the universe is flat. The mass and energy came from the singularity but I already mentioned, we don’t know what the singularity looks like but we know we suddenly had mass and energy and they spread out after the big bang. The second law of thermodynamics says we move from ordered states to disordered states but it does not actually define which states are better or worse, which is understandable but we can define that states with a higher concentration are more complex than states with a lower concentration of mass and energy. Of course, it may lose the concentration but if the concentration gets held together by forces like gravity and the strong nuclear force, then complexity can keep increasing and increasing and at some point you get life, which ultimately has dna, which is the key factor that leads to the characteristics of the life in question and with time the characteristics we see change because dna also changes, it can lose and gain complexity in many different ways but the common factor is still dna and that it can gain and lose complexity in many different ways. The implications of my theory of complexity is that life is very complex because dna is very complex and that the dna is now understood to be capable of being manipulated to be more of less complex in many different ways. Of course, what about the implications of my theory on something like climate change? It can explain climate change also. The total energy of the universe is zero but the earth has positive net energy from the sun. The sun bombards the earth with energy, plants absorb the energy through photosynthesis and animals and humans can eat the plants. In the past, we had plenty of plants and plenty of animals eating the plants that have lived and died. And their corpses sometimes get preserved as fossil fuels. With the stored energy of the fossil fuels, we can do a lot of work but unleashing the potential energy of fossil fuels but one of a few bad byproducts of unleashing the energy is carbon dioxide which gets trapped in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is not the only bad byproduct, all the bad byproducts together we call greenhouse gases. Since I am going to unify everything in a single framework, I shall go on a slight detour to address something that has popped up and that will be explained further later. That topic is the morality involved in our primal need to eat. I address this topic using Kant’s philosophy which to be boils down to if it is ok for you, it is ok for me also. Animals may never understand us and so we cannot save them from their desires by getting them to understand and so what we allow them to do, we can do also. Our intelligence should not mean that we forsake our mission for progress to give animals that will never understand progress the power to have everything they want at our expense. That is the gist of my view on veganism but more on that later. I also feel the need to address capitalism and the view that it is greedy. I agree that it is greedy and that needs to change to something better. My view is that we do not just need more and more. More and more is never satisfactory. More and more is largely driven by dopamine and it knows no end. Very high levels of dopamine can be found in drugs and users of drugs often suffer and require rehabilitation so how is more and more dopamine progress? What we really need is meaning. Meaning in life is what will allow us to rest satisfactorily and also I argue give us the strength to face death, which no human at present can be saved from and will eventually have to face. I do not claim to know what is meaningful for everyone, everyone can decide for themselves but if people have meaning, they may not need as much, they just need enough to find meaning and then they can rest, hopefully live a long life and have strength to face death. The US is the king of capitalism and they do have many problems related to greed but it is hard to say they do not understand humanity because life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are what almost everyone wants, and to respect what people generally want, is respecting humanity. We can’t just give people everything they want, people’s ambitions can know no bounds, and their greed can know no bounds but we can still give them the ability to pursue their happiness and hopefully, the pursuit of happiness is enough. Sometimes the pursuit of happiness can be more meaningful than achieving the goal anyway, which is why in my unified theory that I will be talking about later, I only mention meaning and not material goods or fame as part of achieving progress because as argued above, dopamine may not be what people are after anyway, what they really want is meaning. Dopamine may give you a high and a high once in a while is perfectly fine but can you say progress is just more fun and excitement? Of course fame and money is a good insurance policy for the unpredictable nature of reality but meaning to me is more central to progress.

"Must keep appearances" even when they make you look bad and set you up for failure? Why tho