YaDinghus

Well this 'certain context' was not given in Barr's case

Can you link me to some in-depth material on this? I've had some thoughts on DE recently and I could use some non-light reading for the occasional day off. While this thread is about dark matter, I think other contributors might also be interested in this

I'm getting the feeling that you're just being spiteful on purpose

No.

Why not bring it up again? Short version: hawking radiation evaporates black holes. Energy is conserved because HR is the exact amount of energy that the BH loses. Of course you can't reproduce the Big Gang in a lab, but you can test many of its predictions. Absolute strawman of a strawman. Also, a burning strawman. Meaning beyond science is the only subjective thing here. Emotions are electrochemical processes in the brain. I, and I surmise everyone else here, is open to the idea that life on other planets looks a lot different from what it does here on earth, as long as it metabolizes, reproduces, reacts to stimuli and evolves. But a life form creating our universe just isn't a very good theory - in fact, it is a very bad one, because it has 0 predictive power, it is not falsifiable, and probably a lot of other reasons. Also, I don't recognize the pertinence regarding your own opening post. Disagreeing is one of the things scientists do best. But the vast majority of scientists do It would be really nice if you could provide a quote to what you're getting at from the paper you linked to. I don't have the time or patience to look for what you may want to say exactly while I'm at work, and even less once I get home. Same as before. Also, it would be nice if you mentioned what the source is if it isn't obvious from the link text.

You don't have to be a professional to be right. I may have studied physics in college, but I didn't get a relevant degree and I don't work in the field. But we are not judged based on our background; we are judged on how we present our case: with sound logic and supported by citations of reliable sources, and eloquence doesn't hurt

It makes more sense to read that you don't think he made any references to superiority. That is very magnanimous of you. When it comes to @Endercreeper01, my good will is nearly depleted

It's also true that the Irish are the best at producing Vitamin D via their skin because they are genetically inclined to be the whitest people on earth. I'm not saying there aren't adaptations to life style and environment, just that it doesn't make any group systematically inferior or superior.

Basically what you are saying is that positive mass attracts negative mass, but negative mass repels positive mass. That doesn't seem logical to me. After all, both gain potential the closer they get - according to your own math - and that means they repel each other

Mind... Blown

So if I offhandedly called you a Nazi, you wouldn't take offense to that? Which truth are you referring to? The superiority of the Master Race? They'll find new jobs. After all, they can claim to have worked on one of the most successful sitcoms in the US. Maybe they weren't even fired, but just got sent to another show that's taking Roseanne's slot? When your perceived oversensitivity becomes the culture, it is by definition common sense: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense_(disambiguation)

I might have remebered falsely. Thanks for correcting me

How are your programming skills? How is your grasp on the laws of electrostatics and electrodynamics? Your post suggests you want to simulate a human brain at work? How far are you with that? Do you have it on GithHub?

That is one possible way. Afaik that is similar to how many antidotes to heavy metals work: Chelat ligands like EDTA bind to the heavy metals stronger than the enzymes they impair, and are then transported out of the blood stream via the urinal tract. Caution: the ligands themselves usually don't carry a net charge, there is a charge imbalance in the molecule that binds to the free orbitals on the heavy metal. There are however much more complex mechanisms at work when you want to imitate an enzyme - a friend of mine is actually studying the quantum aspects of catalytsis at the University of Bayreuth, Germany.

You don't understand what trust really is in a religious sense if you don't always have trust in a higher power Faith, trust and hope are closely related concepts. It doesn't help that faith and trust are often used interchangeably. I for instance have trust that my wife is faithful, and I have faith that she trusts me in the same way. The distinction I would make based on this concept is this: I don't have to trust my wife, and she doesn't have to trust me to ensure we are faithful. We could snoop around and control each other. We don't do that because trust is integral to our relationship, but in principle it is a falsifiable assumption. Faith or trust in a higher power which you have described in three other threads that I am aware of is not falsifiable. This falsifiability is what most of us here seem to hinge the difference between trust and faith on, and I can accept it as a sensible distinction

Have you read anything in the thread except its title?

That does seem to be a core psychological aspect of faith and superstition. Some people seem to be more prone to it than others. I couldn't say if it was an universal trait of human psychology, but it seems common enough to be considered a special case if anyone missed it. However, since there are certainly plenty of people who reject faith and still suffer from confirmation bias, it may be a necessary aspect but not a sufficient one.

Considering how powerful both theories are and how accurately they describe the universe at their scale, a ToE would be amazing. They are however not things that created the universe, they are theories. A theory that encompasses both quantum physics and GR would not only better describe how the universe came to be, it would also better describe the universe we are living in as it is now and how it evolves in the future. Is that a ToE? I don't know. I personally believe that there is an infinite amount of knowledge in the universe which can't be discovered in the limited, albeit very long time the Universe will be habitable (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe), which would mean there can't really be a theory of everything. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying to find out.

I know this isn't the joke thread - though it has become sort of a joke in itself - but there are 10 kinds of people: those who know hexadecimal and F the rest... That could certainly be an intersting discussion

Number two it is...

I'm okay if this eventuality is at the heat death of the universe

So it's more or less about something that more or less resembles consciousness which relates more or less to reality. That's a lot of more or less, probably less than more

It's at best an indication, probably an illusion, and at worst a delusion

Well, yeah. That is exactly what this whole 'discussion' seems to be about. We operate on entirely different premises of how reality works, and we are not going to agree on a basic set of premises for how a discussion works, either. So, we shouldn't be discussing this at all, but agree to disagree

You're not reasoning, you're repeating.