Lord Antares

No it doesn't. It's the opposite of that. It tries to reach logical conclusions without quantifiable results or evidence. That is done by science. If you want to make something that works, if you want to figure out variables for devices, if you want to calculate energy consumption for economy, if you want to synthesize materials etc. you use science, because philosophy provides none of that. It delves more into why those things are happening and what they mean. As it requires no mathematics, you cannot make any output out of philosophy. Also, the ''correctness'' (which is a loose term anyway) of philosophy is often arguable, something which is antithetical to science. In science, agreement with experiment and evidence is a requirement if you want to know what you're doing.

I don't understand what you mean, can you clarify? It has been happening slowly over time but we have only now detected it. If this is a joke, it went over my head.

http://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-space-probes-have-detected-a-human-made-barrier-shrouding-earth According to this NASA research, we have built up a shield surrounding earth which alters the properties of space surrounding earth - one of the features being we are shielded from some forms of radiation. This would, in theory, make it possible for someone else to detect artificial changes to space, indicating life.

There can be space without particles in it. It's not ''nothing'', it's just empty space. While vacuum doesn't exist on a large scale, it seems (to me) that micro-vacuums (what you are talking about) are everywhere. The folks explained it in this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96915-why-isnt-the-statement-there-is-no-perfect-vacuum-in-space-logicallymathematically-flawed/

It most definitely isn't. Science is the best way we can describe reality to a woking extent whereas philosophy doesn't offer factual and experimental data. I don't know why you think science can't step foward because it relies on data. With new data, new science is possible. Also, with new theories and models, new data can be acquired which can then be used. Philosophy is never correct nor incorrect. How could we rely solely on philosophy if it can't be used in the material world? You build new technology and equipment with science, not philosophy. No. It doesn't work on accuracy. It's like asking if art was as accurate as science. Art and philosophy don't rely on correctness. No, philosophy isn't an advanced science. It isn't science at all. Let's put it like this, to get a bette picture: Science shows how stuff works and philosophy seeks to describe why it works. It is an overgeneralization, but it's true a lot of the time.

What is it like in the US? In Croatia, you are required to get some vaccines as well. Unfortunately, the way these people work, education will not help one bit, since their premise is that the government is lying about the information. It is the most dangerous of misconceptions out there. If you try to argue with them, you can see that there is no evidence that, for example, vaccines cause autism but they will asnwer ''how do you know that? That's the infomation they are making up.'' Unfortunately, due to the nature of their disbelief, it is impossible to convince them otherwise. They will things like the health industries are putting toxins into their vaccines on purpose so you have to buy meds later and they will never dislodge that belief no matter what you say.

You were clear, don't worry. It's on him for not understanding you. I don't think the mods are relaxed about it. If the hypotheses are good, they are allowed; if they are bad, they are locked. That's not relaxed in my book, it's exactly how it should be. So far, not one of them has been acknowledged (to my knowledge), so that shows that much rigor is needed.

In my opinion, saying that light ''moves like waves on a rope but without the rope'' is like saying ''the sea is yellow but without the yellow color''. It doesn't mean anything. Esentially, it means that photons have a wavelike behavior, which has been known for a long time. So, if there was a speculation there, it doesn't represent anything. The answer to your first three questions is yes, and your last two questions are actually good. I would drop the speculations and let them be answered, then take in that knowledge.

This. I don't know who downvoted you, but it's correct. OP, think of inflating a baloon. The borders of a baloon are getting further apart in diameter, but they are getting thinner. So the surface of a baloon isn't really getting bigger in volume, it's just being spread out over a larger distance. Space acts like this, except there is no evidence that it's material or quantized, so the point about density isn't applicable as far as current physics is concerned. But the point is, there was as much space and matter in the singularity before the big bang as there is now and as there always will be, according to theory.

Yes, mass/energy is the only thing that curves spacetime to our knowledge. Why is a philosophical question. I have my guesses as to why, but it's senseless to talk about it without evidence. Peculiarity is a subjective sentiment so the question cannot be answered objectively. I find it peculiar, I guess, but that doesn't mean anything.

you just take it out. Or you just sign the paper again. Easy to bypass.

There needs to be a signature paper when you leave your stuff with whoever. When you get back, you show them your ID and they give it back. Simple and it eliminates all worry.

Then you shouldn't bring anything to the exam room.

You are, I guess. They won't steal your money. I guess take less money with you and take you're phone and you're good. What could happen? It's not like they take your equipment to a vault, I guess it's all in the exam room or something.

They did, it was incomprehensible to them. If it was generally well written but with specific crucial mistakes, they would have pointed them out, I'm sure. If you really want, you can present it here in the ''Speculation'' forum. There are many physics professionals who might go through it and give you feedback. I hope you included math appropriately. Good luck.

I don't think he meant it in a condescending way. I think he meant to say: ''People think only the physical workers do the true work, but I think that intellectual workers can get just as stressed'' So he didn't diss workers like you, he just elevated intellectual workers (like him?). I think.

I respect that you poured your heart here. Certainly you've gone through some stages. HOWEVER; that doesn't necessarily mean that what you've presented is correct or applicable. The fact that everyone refused your theory reinforces that (I didn't want to appeal to authority, but since you mention your PhD, I did). How do you know for certain that your theory is good? How do you know that it's conspiracy, rather than your mistake? I know you base this on the fact that different sciences refused your paper thinking they it was a completely different science to theirs, but to me, this doesn't point to a conspiracy or inconsiderateness. It rather points to your paper not being good or being incoherent. Now, hold on a second. If you have a PhD in physics, you know more than I do, but that has nothing to do with your theory. The people who reviewed it also have PhDs and they either couldn't understand it or they saw nothing of value there. You had a very weird way with words in your thread, which lead to people not understanding you. Perhaps, that's a great part of the issue. All in all, my question to you is: How do you know that they are wrong for refusing your paper?

Bump so that others who have missed it may see both threads.

Their language is more comprehensible than yours. It helps if you know what you're talking about. Or at least, if you try to express your thoughts clearly and consicely. As is, you sound like a hipster college student who just wants to sound deep. Let me know if there is actual substance you want to discuss. That's why no one else replied to your post: it didn't make sense to them. That's where you miss the point greatly. Everyone undertstands things to different degrees and many people understand different things. How can they agree on the definition of understanding if each of theirs is different? How does a person ignorant in physics undertsand when someone doesn't understand physics if they don't do themselves? Please be clearer. There are two possibilities: 1) No one understand you because you are smarter than everyone 2) No one understands you because you are talking drivel Take caution in identifying which one it is.

Your post was moved to speculations because it was incoherent. If it was any good, it just might have been moved to philosophy.

It doesn't work like that. Alcohol is responsible for many deaths, yes. Cars are responsible for many more. So the logical step forward from banning alcohol is banning cars. It would technically decrease mortality, right? I could substantiate the examples even further, but I think you get the point.

not really, unless they are on the turn of the group, but yeah, thaz was a better idea. Sorry, I didn't see that thread.

You don't have to state your age within the thread. It's my suspicion that there aren't many young active users. My guess is the most will belong in the 40-50 group, followed by the 50-60 group, or the other way round.

OK, that was a good point about China in the 80s. I will add to that the fact that India used to be one of the most developed civilizations in ancient times, whereas it's doing very poorly now. Greece is also a shadow of what it used to be. I acknowledge this. You also made some strawmans, however: This is incorrect. Why would the results show that ALL Asian countries are the most developed? Where did anyone mention that a few countries in a continent doing well means that all must be doing well? If you're implying that all of the nations are genetically the same, they aren't. But OK, I see your point now. Neighboring countries are more similar genetically to one another than countries from other continents. This is an overgeneralization. It's a valid point but I don't think it must apply. For example, Egyptians are a lot different than their more southern neighbours. Compare how well they did throughout history. But as we agreed above, the issue is more complicated than that. Egypt is also one country which should be doing better now if only genetics were at play. Maybe it's the other way around then, as I mentioned before? Maybe the people have lesser IQs because they are provided with lesser education and culture, rather than the other way round? The fact that black people of African descent are doing ''better'' in America in Europe supports this notion. So it isn't genetics, or at least not to that great of an extent? OK, we're making progress.

BUT PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THE SHIP WILL SEE THE CLOCK RUN DIFFERENTLY. Can you understand that? If clocks were the only objects in the world affected by time dilation, people outside of the ship would see them run at the same rate as people inside the ship. Moreover, if clocks were the only objects affected by time dilation, the people inside the ship would see them run slower, not normally.