Leaderboard

God, as a monotheistic being, is capitalized for the same reason Allah is. It's being used as a proper name. If I refer to a "god" that could be any from a vast range of supernatural entities, and so it's a common noun. Grark, the god of rotten cashews. The god of small things. Children of a lesser god.

Google the definition of soul and then google the definition of conscience. Compare and contrast the two definitions. That should answer your question.

In 4D, if special relativity is correct, yes. What @Schindelbeck is talking about though is a bit different. Every particle would be moving in 5D and --for photons in particular-- only the 4D projections of their 5D trajectories would appear to go at speed c. That, of course, if I understood correctly and pending me getting back to it and seeing if I can make sense of any of it any further, which is by no means a certainty.

Sure, this is right. Then the question is, how much interbreeding would create a stable inherited set throughout the entire population. The OP question is still open, I think. 1-4% of what? Do we have on average 1 neanderthal gene? 5? 100? Are they genes that we share with neanderthal but with nothing else? Are they "genes" or long chunks of DNA? How long? Is this just a pop-science number?

This brings to mind the agreement between India and China not to use firearms within a couple kilometres of the Line of Actual Control in the area of disputed border between the two countries. Unfortunately at times casualties including fatalities sometimes occur when fighting erupts but at least those casualties are considerably lessened along with reduced tendencies for escalation than otherwise would be likely. "According to the agreement, they can’t use firearms, but that doesn’t mean they can’t have fistfights or fights with swords, axes, clubs, and more. Although shots have been fired, when this has occurred, both sides have immediately denied it as neither wants to be in violation of the agreement." https://www.sandboxx.us/news/these-are-the-unique-weapons-used-in-the-border-clashes-between-china-and-india/#:~:text=While the soldiers had rifles,batons%2C stones%2C and others.

That's only true in two dimensions. The corresponding quantity in four dimensions (ignoring the numeric factor) was given above: Rijkl Rpqrs δijpqklrs For even dimensions in general, the quantity is: Rijkl Rpqrs ... Ruvwx δijpq...uvklrs...wx I am not aware of any corresponding quantity for odd dimensions.

Yes, but then you’d end up with a different theory of gravity. In GR, the tensor we’re looking for can only contain first and second derivatives of the metric, must be linear in the latter, symmetric, and divergence-free. Lovelock’s theorem guarantees that the only tensor that fulfills these criteria is the Einstein tensor.

All the features you list are common to a vast range of creatures, so would not be part of this 1-4% you are enquiring about. So we share DNA all of these, even though we are not directly descended from any of them. It is often said we share 50% of our DNA with a banana, even. But my understanding is the 1-4% relates to DNA features found in homo sapiens neanderthalensis but NOT found in homo sapiens sapiens of African origin. As for where it comes from, one needs to keep in mind that H sapiens sapiens and H sapiens neanderthalensis appear to have interbred. So they are not fully separate species. Therefore, if, like me, you are of N European ancestry, it is likely you have some ancestors who were Neanderthals, rather in the way that I have one Welsh great-grandmother.

One of my professors used to say that all roads lead to thalamus. She obviously didn’t have a taste for the powers of the nose to smell out a shortcut.

I've never seen the SR kind of spacetime diagrams used in QM or in QFT. But a rest frame of a particle or a system is often used and selected in such a way that makes calculations easier. In such a frame, some momentum is zero, which simplifies formulas.

I don't say or imply anything like that and don't have any idea how it seems so. I say that the states, which are spinors, evolve in spacetime. Just like a scalar such as temperature can evolve in spacetime but is not the same as spacetime. But you don't need to go to spinors to express your concern. Long before Dirac, in the good old Schrödinger equation, the wave functions are complex-valued functions and they represent particle states in a complex vector space. In case of the Hamiltonian observable basis, the states, complex functions, are eigenstates, while the energies, real scalars, are eigenvalues. I don't think there is any problem in this distinction.

Here is a derivation ( some simple maths ) of the HUP as applied to a particle described by a deBroglie wave. Includes historical perspective and is well illustrated.

One of the more sad and horrible war stories I've heard, and that's saying something. It's the kind of story that sends me back to my core opinion on human aggression: you cannot trust humans with anything more lethal than a stick.

Good point about disengenuous reporting-- The Warmists are guilty of that. They commonly show the co2 gragh and the temp graph superimposed- both, miraculously, with a 50% slope implying a 1:1 relationship....But in truth, the co2 graph should be sloped about 60% (260ppm ==> 420ppm or 160/260) over the last century, while the temp graph should be sloped only 0.7% (286 ==>288*K) ...Then we could argue about what a 2deg rise in temps means...Can you step outside and accurately estimate the temp to any greater accuracy than +/- 5 degC? The common wisdom has been that co2 is a well mixed gas with little variation from one geographic location to the next, but now that we have a co2 sensing satellite, that may not be as true as we'd like to think. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/01/carbon-dioxide-movie-night-the-global-picture/ Note how much co2 is being dumped into the atm by Asia, and, with Mauna Loa, the "official measurement site" directly downwind, maybe we need to re-examine how much the [co2] has really gone up. This whole "GW" controversey is marred by so much bad science, unethical practices and outright lies for political and financial advantage that we have to treat it like we treat "data" about Big Foot-- while we can;t scientifically say he doesn;t exist, there's so much outright fraud involved in the reporting that we have to hold all info suspect.

Why? Did you stop cheating?

I found such opinion As atheists, we can remove all capitalization or the common noun usage since that is only being done out of reverence. We should still capitalize proper noun usage. “The Christian god” is common noun usage. Other example: * Jesus spoke to God. * Jesus spoke to his god. * I do not believe in any gods. * I do not believe in a god. * I do no... I thought atheists don't believe in any god. If I'm confident that there's no place for God in my life, no grammar would stop me from writing in my own manner. If disrespect someone's name i write it with a small letter.

When it's convenient you follow the rules, and when inconvenient - you don't. It's not honest. Face it. There are various names of God, many of which enumerate the various qualities of a Supreme Being. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God