Lord Antares

I know but that's not what she asked. She simply asked does time cause entropy, or does entropy cause time. That's the question. I know. I agree with you. It is false dichotomy. It does correlate with time in isolated systems. I know this is isn't correct in all cases, but the question was what causes what and I attempted to answer.

You are correct, but I think you misinterpreted the question. It was an either/or question. But it's not a really meaningful one. Time isn't a real physical entity, it doesn't exist as such. We defined time to be a continued progression of events measured in chronological order. Or you could say, a countinued increase in entropy, if you will. So yeah, entropy increases with time. Saying that it makes time is also correct in a way, but it isn't all that meaningful.

I think he means to ask if the laws of physics exist because the universe is expanding and if they were there before the big bang (before the expansion of the universe). We can safely say that the laws of physics were different then but there is no known answer to this. No one knows what was happening before the big bang. I don't know what he means by earth's natural frequency though.

What do you mean it isn't contradicted by observable evidence? You mean to say we cannot refute it because we haven't seen it? In that case, I postulate that there is a tiny, microscopic goblin cruising around the universe creating black holes and that's where they come from. You cannot refute it, so there's no reason to believe it's false, right? Anyway, evolution DOES refute creationism because the eath has been proven to be older than 6000 years. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to believe that anything else that creationism states is true.

I see. I did not know this. But that only proves my point that it isn't clear. In fact, if I remember correctly, when I first joined the forum, I avoided the Speculations forum because I thought it was about discussing pseudoscience, which the description text says. Also, when anyone brings up some pseudoscience in the forum, it quickly gets dismissed and closed as such - but that only means that it is actually NOT welcome, right? Yes, and it wasn't clear to me that this is OK if one doesn't claim it's true until he just posted this. In fact, I think I remember a thread where someone wanted to discuss some pseudoscience and asked if it held any water (which means he did not accept it as true) and he got questioned about providing evidence for it. I think these types of questions are almost invariably posted in the physics section. I had some questions like that, posted them there and received helpful comments. This is because they are actually related to mainstream physics (at least 2. and 3. are). They're just questions about genuine physics, right? That's where I would post that.

I understand that. As I said, I am not arguing against this. I'm all for it. I'm arguing that it may be unclear to some users. Statements such as ''you can make stuff up for fun'' and ''this is where you can post pseudoscience'' do not help in getting accross the purpose of the forum. Again, they don't have to change the name of the forum or add a new one based on me telling them to, but I think it would be reasonable to edit the description text.

Most threads in the speculations forum lead nowhere and are missing any kind of evidence or basis in math. I can understand the frustration of the mods who have to go though this and interrogate the posters to no avail (most of the time). They usually tell them to check the forum description and read the rules. So I did and it is a bit vague. The sentences underlined in red contradict the sentences underlined in green: How can one make things up for fun and have them be accompanied by evidence? Also, pseudoscience means false science; science not based on actual facts. How can pseudoscience then be based on evidence? Another thing. Taken from dictionary.com, the word speculation means: 3. a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation: These speculations are impossible to verify. 4. conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts. Taken from dictionary.cambridge.org: speculation noun (GUESS) the activity of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain: So it's more than a bit ambiguous. This might be the reason why so many people misunderstand the purpose behind that particular sub-forum. Don't get me wrong, I like how the forum is policed. The fact that the pseudoscience is weeded out and real science accepted is immensely helpful for new members who might not realize which theories hold merit and which don't. I just think it should be made a bit clearer. I suggest that the name of the forum be changed to ''New theories'' with the words underlined in red taken out. At the very least just remove the red words. Or even make seperate forums for speculations and new theories. That way the speculations forum wouldn't have to be examined so rigorously by mods and the new theories forum would (hopefully!) contain mostly legitimate or plausible science. What do you think?

But shouldn't there be appeals anyway, with or without the death penalty? One must review someone's conviction, whether he be senteced to life in prison or executed. Also, people on death row stay housed for a shorter period of time than those convicted to life in prison.

I see. That's what I said would be right anyway. Only sentence them to death if you are completely sure they are guilty. Still doesn't explain how it's more expensive than keeping them in prison, though.

Yes, I agree with that. Not all murders are equal. I meant cold-blooded, unwarranted murders. Also, can anyone explain to me how the death row works and why it needs to exist?

Yes but that is twisted logic. Are you seriously suggesting that the wrongdoings of the average person equal that of a murderer? You can't go ''we all make mistakes'' on me here. Killing someone isn't a mistake, it's a giant blunder.

So what you are trying to say is ''well, we all mistakes. Some people steal some fruit from the market or lie and some murder people. What can you do, we're all human hehe''.

It does work. I just tried it. I typed something and then refreshed the page after the auto-save message. It was blank but there is this button highlighted in red. When you click it, this window pops up:

And why exactly would you give a murderer a second chance? His victim didn't get one and they were presumably a better person that the murderer himself. What exactly do you expect to be amends for killing an innocent and productive person? You think that if they regret the murder and become a good person, they've somehow corrected their mistake? Their ''mistake'' is permanent and can never be corrected. Giving them a second chance is immoral towards the families of the victim.

I'm sorry, that's not a good comparison. What I mean is, yes, this is only applicable for murderes. The rest can be dealt with by prison time. What's so unreasonable about that? The only problem is, as StringJunky says, the possibility of executing an innocent person. I obviously meant to say that only proven and undeniable acts should be punished by death.

Yes, I agree with you completely. I have never experienced that close of a personal loss and I'm thankful for it. But I'm aware it's a morbid thing, and therefore the offenders must be punished accordingly. Why anyone thinks prison time is an adequate punishment for these people is beyond me.

Do you mean from the perspective of the authorities, who don't want to execute them without having considered what will happen to them afterwards? Because that's precisely what the murderers did in the first place. EDIT: You probably mean from the perspective of the murderers, so you agree with me, I think.

I don't understand why people think the death penalty is unjust. I don't get the logic. If someone tortures and kills people, multiple people at that, how is it not right to kill them? If anything, it's a lower punishment then they deserve. It's better from every single perspective. You don't have to take care for them and you don't have to worry about their demeanor anymore. I don't understand the people who say ''that would be stooping to their level''. It shouldn't be some kind of teaching principle to show you're ''better than them''. That's irrelevant. They took honest and potentially successful lives forever. The only just thing you can do is take theirs. Also, you have to understand that some people like living in prison. They like playing the dominant games with other prisoners and enjoy the atmosphere there. I mean, they might not prefer it to a real life, but it's not a dim one for them. All in all, I think not utilizing the death sentence is unethical. And can someone explain to me how does it cost more money to kill someone then keep them in prison? This makes zero sense to me.

So, saying that the kid is a mysoginist based on his father's behaviour is innapropriate, but saying he tortures animals, also based on his father's behaviour is somehow apt? Ok. Anyway, reading the anti-Trump bias on this forum is completely hilarious.

Why not just take a few screenshots with the ''print screen'' button and post them here? That's by far the easiest solution if you can't copy it in any other way. It's a bit humorous to think that he is capable of coming up with a ground-breaking physics theory but not able to paste it here. Imagine if the theory was true and world-changing but it never left the comfort of his computer because he couldn't find a way to paste it online.

Yes but that's an unsolvable issue everywhere, not just in the US. If the hospital is crowded, then whatever method they use to determine who is next on the list, there will still be people who they won't have time to treat properly. However, there is a key difference. In my country, they will use the priority of the emergency (or time of arrival if there are no emergencies) to decide who is next. IF the US uses the insurance as a deciding factor, then I agree, that's a fatal flaw. Literally.

No, no one can argue the system is bad and broken. There is no doubt about it. I was just saying that some people believe if you get shot and rushed to the hospital in the US, that you would get left lying there if you have no money. That is just a bit extremist is all I'm saying.

I cannot help you any further. You seem to be completely misunderstanding everything. I know what you are trying to say, but you are wrong. Again you're saying that I have disdain for lesser educated people, which is far from everything I've said. All I said is that plumbers are less educated in physics than physicists are. Do you seriously have a problem with that sentence? If I said that mathematicians are less educated in history than historians, would you deduce that I was insulting mathematicians and considering them stupid? Because that sounds exactly like what you are doing. For the third or fourth time, yes, the Chinese invented rockets long ago, but only a physicist can really explain to you the forces involved and only he or a mathematician can exactly calculate the trajectory, force, etc. of the rocket. This is something that the Chinese were unable to do at that time. They were able to use the rockets, but not explain them. Please don't accuse me of disdain towards the Chinese. Your Magellan example is invalid. You were countering an analogy. Again, Magellan would be the plumber if I were to use another analogy, and today's astronomers would be the physicists. I don't have the energy to repeat myself again, so take from it what you can. You know, you are a strange case. You somehow seem at least somewhat intelligent; there is a certain logic behind your reasoning, but it is all wrong and you keep completely missing the point all the time. I don't know if you skim through the posts or make no effort to understand them or what. As I said, I won't reply anymore cause it would warrant having to repeat myself all over again.

Aha, so it was just anti-American propaganda what I've heard. Or simple misinformation. In any case, it did not seem reasonable to me.

You are, again, completely missing the point. Rephrasing will probably do no good so I'll do my best to find a simple analogy. OK, so think of Galileo and Copernicus. They described the mechanics of planetary motion. Their models were correct and used from then on by astronomers. They, however, did not understand why planets acted in such a way and why they circled around the sun in an elipse. Then came sir Isaac Newton who clearly explained how this worked and gave absolute mathematical formulae for everyone to be able to calculate. Galileo and Copernicus are plumbers in this analogy, while Isaac Newton is the physicist. So, to reiterate, the two astronomers understood completely well how the planets are moving and how they will be aligned in a certain point in time, but they did not understand why any of that was happening. It is not a perfect analogy, but you should be able to undestand now. If not, I can't help you.