DrKrettin

Well, not being a historian, it seems to me that all four are quite possible and that there is nothing to choose between B, C and D which all amount to the same thing. Note that the title is not a question which asks which is correct, it is an instruction to choose one. So you could choose any, irrespective of whether it is correct or not.

This is interesting (at least, relative to his phi). Note the uppercase O in the middle of a sentence after "with I". It must be religious or some other mental issue.

Enlighten me - how do you use "I" in a way which is blatantly ungrammatical? And I'll gladly bugger off if you identify one false statement I have made. Or one useful contribution you have made.

But you can't be English either. Do you really say "to I" ? Have you never heard the word "me" used as an indirect object? And it's "you're" not "your".

All you have shown is a meaningless coincidence between two numbers - what is there to discuss?

This is a science forum, and it might be expected for you to take the trouble to state your reasons. The obvious reason is that there is no coincidence between the "two phis" in other units, so what exactly is the point?

Not at all - I'm just trying to point out that "Nature's phi" as you define it depends on the units of c. Why choose metres and seconds?

I must be missing something because I thought that not only were the posts from Strange and Bignose relevant, they made a lot of sense. Which is more than can be said for an approximate equal value of phi and the value of something which depends entirely on the units used - in this case, metres and seconds. Try expressing c in units of furlongs per weekend, and see if you can find another fascinating equivalence!

Just how near do you have to be to detect irony?

Well, yes, but the knife shown on the table is just larger than the diameter of the cake.

I've just guessed at 20-10-6-3-1 which seems to give any weight up to 40 (but it's Monday morning)

There is plenty of secure evidence from Ancient Greece that suicide was quite normal in that society (e.g. Socrates etc.). It was considered preferable to an old age of pain with no pain relief, and I guess being a burden to the family was also a consideration. But I suppose this is much later than the time period in question here.

I'm confused as well - I can't see Goldilock, all I can see are the 3 bears.

Excellent advice. Perhaps I can add that what creationists do is to invent the term "evolutionist" in order to give the impression that they are rival belief systems and by inference can have equal validity. This is either deceitful or ignorant - there is no such thing an as evolutionist - people don't "believe in" evolution, it is a scientific theory which does a very good job of explaining what we observe and what we know of the past. I mean, just how can a professor of mechanics deny the validity of dating methods in archaeology? How can creationists deny the evidence for the age of the earth? Creationists just deny a mountain of solid scientific evidence and refer to the bible. How stupid it that?

Yes, why not if getting rich is your priority. You could even become POTUS, or as is now, SCROTUS, and then you could display your utter ignorance of just about everything else publicly on TV. You wouldn't be the first.

One of those was from me. This is a science forum, but your post showed such a lack of logic and was such a poor response to the OP that I didn't think it belonged here. You seem unable to separate the issue of existence of a god with the issue of creationism. Not all Christians are insane enough to think the world was created just a few thousand years ago. And if a professor teaching engineering thinks that is the case, in direct conflict with masses of scientific evidence to the contrary, then there is something wrong.

Why does this question appear on this forum? I have just googled images of "Early Byzantine ivory relief panels " and the answer is pretty obvious and instant (assuming the images I get are actually that, some are obviously not).

OK I'll buy it. I don't agree with you. I await your redefinition of English verbs with a certain degree of expectation that this is going nowhere.

I agree, but I found this sentence grammatically interesting because at first I miss-read it as "The debate is over. Whether it is ...". The reason that I miss-read it was because I find myself having to make sense of some internet users who are just too lazy to use punctuation (not the case here). People forget that punctuation replaces the intonation heard in speech which serves to prevent ambiguities. When writing for readers from different cultures with different expectations from the language, as on an internet forum, punctuation can be very important. As is the use of capital letters: I am often amazed at how lazy people get with those, as if it were really difficult to use the shift key. Not everybody sees the difference between "I helped my Uncle Jack off his horse" and "I helped my uncle jack off his horse".

Well, at least I agree with you that you need assistance.

That video makes it all sound totally plausible, until you hear the counter-argument that the Olympic had one deck with a visibly different structure so the switch could not possibly have been made. The real question is why such a totally dishonest video has been made. I think Trump was responsible somehow.

Yes, but I live on what is technically an active volcano (Tenerife) so I'm relatively chilled out about Yellowstone. There are only so many things you can worry about.

Yet one more issue that it is pointless worrying about.

The God of the Jews, not Christians.

I think the OP is banned, not that he would bother to answer anyway.