Harrot

Okay, so your misunderstanding stems from the fact that you've never noticed that when we talk about a “why question” in physics, scientists are of course talking about a “how question”. Why does heat flow from hot to cold? Why is the density of water lower in its solid state than in its liquid state? Why is the sun's corona so hot? Why can an airplane fly? Etc. You see, these are all questions of why, and scientists don't react in this way: “There's the word ‘why’, it's once again a metaphysical question and physics doesn't deal with it”. That would be a poor excuse to hide the fact that we don't know the answer, don't you think? Now that we know that the question “why is c invariant” is a scientific question, not a metaphysical one, does anyone have a hypothesis to explain this fact? Probably, but the question isn't “what would happen if c wasn't invariant”, but “why is c invariant”, and I'll translate it for you into a clearer sentence. Old version: “How does nature make c invariant?" Modern variant: “What's the phenomenology behind it?" As with heat flow, ice density, the way an airplane can fly, electrical charges, etc., for which we now know there's something going on behind the curtain that we can describe further. Because if you were to stick to the other way of looking at things, to the question: “Why is water less dense in its solid state?”, you'd have the same answer: “there would be a plethora of unsolvable physical paradoxes, and the universe wouldn't have evolved” and I'm sure you understand that this isn't the right way to do physics. Of course, if you assert something that isn't observed, it would make the world incoherent soon or later, but this reasoning says nothing about the phenomena we do indeed observe. It would be simpler to say, “That's because things are the way they are” and that was the answer before the invention of the scientific method, but I don't think it's very useful when we want to use the force of nature, like for space travel and so on.

To be more precise, the mathematical explanation is well known: C is invariant. But it's not the physical explanation: the physical explanation answer the question "why is c invariant", and it's only when someone can explain why c is invariant that he can claim that something is physically shrinking or not. To do otherwise is mere speculation. So what is the phenomenology that would enable us to transform this principle (c is invariant) into a physical necessity?

I almost forgot. You can have "bubbles of nothing" in physic. https://www.vice.com/en/article/physicists-are-studying-mysterious-bubbles-of-nothing-that-eat-spacetime/

I think the trend is more in the other direction. As time goes by, it becomes more and more likely that life could be a very common phenomenon, but of course nothing is proven. The discovery of probiotic molecules already formed in space, for example, is a point that has changed our opinion on the probability of the appearance of life. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/astronomy-and-space-sciences/articles/10.3389/fspas.2022.843766/full Of course, not all environmental conditions apply, but some scientists now believe that we may have over-restricted the requirements for life to appear and that the Earth model may be just one of the possibilities, arguing that if extremophilic species exist, life could be more diverse than we think. https://asm.org/articles/2023/march/how-extremophiles-push-the-limits-of-life Some even think that life could be the standard fate of molecules when placed in a particular type of environment: As with life forms, there could be a Darwinian process using trial and selection of the arrangement of molecules. https://www.iflscience.com/life-inevitable-consequence-physics-43007

The what? The "elites" ? I'm glad to see it finally makes sense to you too. In fact, the elites have assumed nothing of the sort. I think that you simply confuse what they say to your attention with what they actually do. And this is much more obvious when it comes to equality between men and women when you remember that UK monarchy was ruled by a woman just recently. Social class is usually the only factor that determines the value of others. Have you noticed that there are queens and that wealthy families marry each other even if they have different ethnic origins, and have done so since time immemorial ? Here some short examples. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/spotlight/6-royal-marriages-that-went-beyond-race/photostory/77480652.cms

First point : Vacuum is not nothingness. Vacuum is when we start with matter (also energy as known in physic, like EM waves is considered part of "matter") , then we move the matter elsewhere : Remain => vacuum. Of course, we tried the best we could, we never reached the 0 "matter" state. Achieving some strong vacuum, it fill itself again with the so named "virtual particles". This virtual matter can be transformed in real matter by spending some corresponding energy. So there is no creation at all, there is still TRANSFORMATION. Nothingness on the other hand is the concept that specity that there is nothing... with perfection. Nothing AT ALL. No matter, no spirit, nada. In fact, we dont know anything about something that could be a "creation" within the domain of physic. We erroneously mention "creation" confusing it with "transformation", per example when we speak about nucleosynthesis in the stars and at the era of the big bang but we never ever seen creation in progress.... elsewhere than those coming from man's mind. Artistic creation is real. Theoritical inventivity is creation. Everything that comes from the WILL is creation. So yes, one can states that logic exclude ITSELF the possibility that something appeear from nothingness but will permit it. Logos is as such the incarnation of the creation of the will within the material world as Mythos could be seen as the idea proposed by the will before creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

You see? This is the result of elites who for decades claimed that “Oh no! There's no difference between blacks and whites”. When it comes to facts, even idiots can observe the counterpart. As for the reason, as you mentioned, not everyone comes to the right conclusion, so why not say the right thing from the start instead using the wrong arguments? “Poor people are more likely to do tricky things, let's end poverty!” Of course, it's political. Getting the poor to fight against themselves using reasons such as gender, ethnicity or religion is a cheap way for the elites to carry on.

So you mean that there is also a second bus taking only care of the heart disease of the men ? But you miss the point : WHY are there some special operation relativ ro women hearth care ? Shouldnt the men and the women not be threated equaly ? "They could also mention some more specific declaration like" : is important to understand the sentence i wrote after that. Then the link is the one you provided yourself : https://newsroom.heart.org/news/women-found-to-be-at-higher-risk-for-heart-failure-and-heart-attack-death-than-men

Maybe it's because they are here distorting reality. The reality is that in every country, women have a lower risk of dying from a heart attack. Therefore, to exclude men, wich are half of the population, from the healthcare project is just medical nonsense. It is very obvious that the argument you mentioned is simply used to manipulate opinion. Reality : https://gh.bmj.com/content/2/2/e000298 Fiction : https://newsroom.heart.org/news/women-found-to-be-at-higher-risk-for-heart-failure-and-heart-attack-death-than-men They could also mention some more specific declaration like within five years after their first severe heart attack "they had when their husband already had some heart attack." I hope you understand the difference. So yes, excluding half the people from health care because they want to save lives is a bad reason. "They" want to save MORE women's lives, NOT ALL lives, by using the time they spend prescribing to explain to poor women who live much longer than men and therefore die more often of heart disease, that they are at a disadvantage compared to men? I hope you understand that this is unethical. It's true that women have particularities when it comes to diagnosis, but there are also many men who are not diagnosed at all, so why focus their action on women? Why not just focus on the elderly or the poor? They're even more concerned. More generaly, i think pointing out that it's wrong to have differences between men and women and to treat men and women differently is a kind of paradox. The best thing would be not to stress anything at all, to do just things in accordance with reality, without advertising, as normal doctors already do. You can't clear the difference when you talk about it all the time, which becomes an obsession. As with racism, young people who aren't told every day that there's a difference between black and white they shouldn't take into account don't notice the difference for themselves. You know what's a bad way of not thinking about something? It's to think that you shouldn't think about it.

Faith is not belief. Belief is the opposite of faith. Faith is a state you obtain by using your “will”: it is therefore obtained when you are “active”. Belief is a state you obtain by using your “observation”: it is therefore obtained when you are passive. When we talk about willpower, we're talking more precisely about “free will”, because “willpower” is either “free will” or ... it isn't. There is no will that is not free, so we can continue to say “will” instead of “free will” to simplify the explanation, but you must understand “free will”. Will goes hand in hand with “being”. Being” is what distinguishes each person as an individual. You can transform yourself, lose a leg, become Alzheimer, your being remains: it's “YOU” and everything that happens concerns you, applies to “you”. You can't sell it, you can't deny it, and nothing can destroy it... it's eternal. It's immaterial. So “you” are supposed to have a “will” for eternity, because God is the creator of it and because of his perfection his creation is not corruptible. God created man in his own image: So a "being" eq an "entity where things happen to him", which is immaterial and has a will. It looks so obvious that we can experiment the world as an individual... but it is not : It is supernatural, it gets over the materiality of the nature. The will of this creature is conceived to be independent of the will of its creator, which is perhaps why we added the word “free” to the term “will” to better understand what it is. Therefore, unlike things that have no will, we can “disobey”, and in doing so, we contradict the will of our Creator but we have been created to permit us to do so. If your will is compatible with God's will, then faith leads to real action in this world. What, then, is God's will ? (the part of his will that concerns us, of course, not all his will, which could be whatever he wants, since he is “transcendent”) You can know it as soon as you experience faith, because then something happens. At that moment it happens that you understand, you don't understand, you think it's natural or you think it's supernatural. All these things can happen. Of course, it's when things seeems to be supernatural that it gives you the most information. So faith doesn't give you supernatural power, it reveals God's will. That's the minimal theory. There's much much more to say of course, like "what is man ?", but in my opinion it is not a good thing to let it know to anyone when it comes to achieve God's will. So let keep it simple : Faith is not belief.

Is framing issues in terms of "men and women" necessary in the 21st century? Yes, it is.... if you want to explain why you care more about women than others. If you want to win the election you need to create a controversy you can highlight. It's pure marketing. Are there differences between men and women? Of course, and that's why we have gynecologists and andrologists who specialize in men's and women's health. We also have special medicine for children, and it's well known that you can't operate on a child as you would on an adult, so hospitals have specialized departments for them, The same goes for the elderly and the young, and so on. But do we need to affirm these facts everywhere? Let's take an example : in some countries, it has become very difficult for everyone to have access to doctors. That's why associations travel around the country in buses so that women can consult a cardologist. So only women are helped, not men.... Isn't it weird to exclude another category, not because they have not the same anatomy, but just because they are of the wrong gender ? So this is not a medical issue, but a political one.

In the past, I was like everyone else, trying to figure out how to define things like life, intelligence, freedom and so on. Today, I know the answer with certainty. The principle is as follows: If there's a word whose meaning everyone knows, but there's no definition other than: I define it this way because at least we need a common definition, but there's no real reason to admit it, then... there's a high probability that the word belongs to the category of words related to feeling. We feel life, so we have a word for that kind of feeling: alive. So “alive” is nothing other than that....a feeling. “And what about the concept of 'truly' alive? “I reply: “The what? It would be a very big coincidence if, for a word that comes from a feeling we have using our naked eyes (because yes, the word life is an old word), thus an erroneous conception of the living things around us, there was also a real concept behind what would exist in the world. Other misconceptions include “animals”, a kind of animate living beings, but of course this isn't always the case. After classifying living beings (yes, we can! Arbitrary classification works well in some cases and for some reasons), some scientists thought they could distinguish those that are “animate”, i.e. “in motion”, from the others. But we now know that there are species that contradict this rule. Some animals don't move, and some non-animals do. The reasoning above can be applied to many other notions. I particularly like it when it comes to defining the term “random”, leading to the conclusion that random is very likely a feary tale. Now that we know (or at least it's very likely) that “life” is just a feeling, we can of course try to find out why we feel that way. After all, the thing we have in front of us “looks” like life, and yes, the way nature created it is not the same as the way we would use if we wanted to manufacture it in a factory. Therefore, “what looks alive” and “what is created by nature” have something in common, of course, at least because the “mechanics” have the same origin for all the “living” things nature has created. Are viruses alive? No more or less than a cell, but because they come from cells (yes, cells create them), they can be considered to have the same origin as life: created by nature and related to things we consider living because that's how we feel about them. They are related to life forms and we can even speculate (I had a teacher who believed this) that they are a kind of “spore”. Are mushroom spores alive? Yes, no, but they obviously come from living cells... that's just my feeling on the subject.

Diversity is an evolutionary advantage... or not. In biology, the great principles expressed in words are not so great. The reality is much more subtle: here, for example, too much diversity will be a handicap, particularly when the environment remains unchanged, depending on the quantity of individuals that can be lost in the reproductive chain, depending on the loss of resources per lost individual, depending on the growth rate of individuals, depending on the resources available, depending on extraspecific competition, depending on the ability to survive with low diversity, depending on the reproductive method, depending on the migration of alleles from the population, etc. There is therefore no answer that can be given solely on the basis of diversity. The complexity of interactions makes long-term calculations virtually impossible, even with simple life forms. With humans, it gets trickier because there's also feedback on biology through technology, the social part and civilization, which add even more complexity. There was a time when strange peoples were simply killed because they were too different, sometimes they simply made others jealous,... but is this an advantage when it comes to having children? Isn't the biological ability to have more children more effective at duplicating certain genetic traits than being neurodivergent?

Science need INTERSUBJECTIVITY and CONCEPTUAL REPRESENTATIONS that are SHARED using some complex langage and that can be VERIFIED using EXPERIENCE. If not, this is just "having the same opinion about something". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjective_verifiability

To say "something has a purpose" we need to say that there is "a will" involved. Purpose with no intention, so no will, is not a purpose : It remains a fact. In the case of a hammer, because if "someone" is a human and because human do things because of their will, someone who designed the hammer did it obviously by some purpose. Per example, an idiot can design a hammer of 100lbs to test the genuflexion reflex of some patient or to kill flies. He did it by purpose. Is it the best or even the suitable way relativ to the goal ? So is the FACT that it can be used in some situation or not, apply to the purpose it was intented for ? There is no obligation between the fact and the purpose. Purpose come from imagination, and the facts come from reality. You can name "hammer" a piece of wood found in the forest : You imagine his purpose unlike you dident designed the real hammer. We can't say that science is useless for human procreation. It's not true to say that knowing more is useless. Knowing more (and that's what science does) gives you the possibility of doing more, knowing less takes away the possibility of doing more: That's a fact. The right question is: Are we using science to do more in the area of procreating human life? The answer is: Without scientific progress, there would certainly not be 10 billion human beings on Earth. General question: Is the aim of science to help mankind? There is no answer to this question. Science is a fact, and the reason why it is developed and used has nothing to do with any fundamental property of science: It depends on the people involved. So, people can do something one day and do something else another day, making “science” (the application of knowledge) beneficial to a certain field.