swansont

If there was anything classified, there’s a good chance it would be declassified in 2027. 50 years is a common horizon for that. If it dud not, it must have bypassed that parabolic reflector, meaning it must have had an even larger amplitude.

It’s far-fetched in that there is no scientific basis provided for it. Since there is no physical basis for the portal, I don’t see how you can say it’s safer. You are proposing a comparison to fictitious systems. Do you understand that this is not science?

Because you asked “Are you saying they are fixed from start to finish?” Now you admit to knowing that I was not. One wonders why you asked the question. No. You can’t tell what the property was before, since you can’t tell identical particles apart, and/or there was no known “before” property. In parametric down-conversion, for example, the photons are created as entangled. There is no “before” state. You’ve not shown an example of a system that has a “before” state that could be identified.

Of course they do. It’s because they receive signals from different directions. The issue is that they could not tell which horn got the signal, and which was the background. http://www.bigear.org/Gray-Ellingsen.pdf “Ohio State recorded the difference in intensity between the two beams, but not the sign, so there was an ambiguity in which beam the emission was detected.”

On what basis do you claim this? Surely the scientists know where the reflector was pointed, and thus the possible direction of the source.

Are you incapable of determining whether or not I said that? Or that I’ve repeatedly confirmed that the states are undetermined? I guess reading comprehension is one of the issues here.

Not sure how that changes things. Newtonian gravity doesn’t have a mechanism. GR has warped spacetime. Quantum gravity would have an exchange of virtual gravitons. How do you test which one is the “true” form? How do we know it’s not invisible pink fairies?

! Moderator Note AFAIK, patents do not have any assessment for safety. The Vat’s advice is good; owing to your framing of the inquiry I have to close this since we don’t dispense medical advice

Models describe behavior, and can only be tested by comparing with observed behavior.

The drawing isn’t the shortcoming here. You haven’t presented anything that meets the level of rigor we need.

Speculation has to be backed up with evidence. Invoking God is not a rigorous scientific argument.

No, that’s ludicrous. Don’t anthropomorphize nature. She hates that. Besides, you get the same result regardless of the reference frame. Whether or not something happens doesn’t depend on your frame of reference. What is your evidence that there is a computer that runs the universe? Where is it located?

It is not a rules violation to have someone disagree with you. The staff does not consider it to be “harassment”

So? What’s “magical” about that?

There’s no fusion described here.

! Moderator Note You’ve neglected to include any rigorous discussion of how fusion is achieved.

What does one have to do with the other? Fields aren't objects.

Or it could just be referring to the other people participating in the discussion. Whatever. Since you're hung up on the phrasing, all it means is that people don't believe in most deities, and if you don't believe in them, i.e. you don't think they really exist, your position must be that they are made up. Better? I don't know what "common meme" you're referring to; I was just explaining the rationale behind a comment. What apologetic? You seem hell-bent on making this about something that not evident in the original statement, or subsequent commentary.

This is a straw man. You’re the only one in this conversation that has brought up atheism. The rest of us have mentioned “atheist”

None of this happened, though. Nobody redefined atheism. Nobody called you (or anyone) “an atheist” The phrase was “atheist about over 99% of the gods humans have invented” You’re focusing on one word and ignoring the rest of the statement.

Unfortunately that analysis doesn’t appear to account for thawing the chicken, or any thermal losses while you are slapping it. Also “For chickens this so called specific heat is 3.35 kJ per kg of chicken per degree Celsius.” according to https://www.poultryworld.net/poultry/overheated-chick-calculations/

Do you believe in these other gods? If not, how is the expression inaccurate?

Seriously? Which has nothing to do with iNow’s claim. This thread is about being atheist. Not whether God exists.

If everyone on earth disbelieved in God, then they would all be atheistic. It would be their collective belief that God was invented. The existence is beside the point. It’s irrelevant.

I’m not interested in the evidence you didn’t provide to things you didn’t claim. I’m interested in you providing evidence of things you did claim: namely that my reasoning is flawed, or that my claim that thousands of deities exist is incorrect.