zapatos

I think you are correct. Only tangentially related, but that statement reminded me of what I found to be a very powerful quote from the movie "Mississippi Burning".

I found this philosopher's prescient warning interesting and rather spot-on. https://www.yahoo.com/news/philosopher-predicted-rise-of-trump-like-figure-in-98-book-215658929.html

Unless I'm misunderstanding Strange, you and he seems to be saying two different things. You are saying the age of the universe is known to a certain degree of accuracy, but that estimate can change over time. Strange seems to be saying we have absolutely no idea how old the universe is. We only know how long ago the BB began, which may or may not be the age of the universe.

I see the point you are making Strange about the (unknown) age of the universe, but if science is going to treat the age as an unknown, then they should stop saying things like this: https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

Well, yes. When you go to a physics class, do you ever talk to classmates about anything other than physics? Like what you did that weekend, or movies, or who won the election? And fact and debate. Not too dissimilar from discussions on "time" or QM. That's questionable. I suspect people will simply get their politics fix elsewhere. Okay, I'll give you that one.

Actually I don't see why you've suggested deleting the politics section. Can you please expound on the benefits you expect if we do?

As do we all.

So your answer is that it is ordered by time?

If I may jump into your discussion... When you say it is an ordered event, by what measure is it ordered? I know you don't mean it is ordered by height or weight. The only measure I can think of by which it might be ordered is "time".

Because it is not called 'zero o'clock', it is called 'twelve o'clock'.

I'm afraid you are going to have to accept the fact that you will never be able to touch anyone and that you will therefore never be able to achieve a complete emotional bond with the people you love (or scratch an itch for that matter). Perhaps you can take up knitting.

Not in any version of socialism I've ever heard of. Perhaps you are thinking of communism.

No, it is a physical transformation. Perhaps you should Google it. From the first sentence in Wikipedia (and in confirmation of my many years of Catholic schooling...). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

What is a "senatorial district"? You don't seem to understand the purpose of two senators for each state. it is NOT so that "cities don't...prevail" over 'small towns, farms, and rural areas'. You make is sound like there are 'senatorial districts' set up outside of urban areas to represent only rural areas. Senators represent states, not cities. Given this and your claim that a constitutional amendment requires "the OK of all the small population states", I don't think you have a thorough understanding of what exactly our Constitution says.

Why do processes in your FOR slow down (from the perspective of my FOR if you are moving with respect to me) while simultaneously not slowing from the perspective of someone in your same FOR?

In what way does the electoral college protect small population states? It may have 200 years ago, but times have changed. Virginia no longer bullies Rhode Island and the population is not concentrated in a couple of large states. A Constitutional Amendment would not require the OK of all the small population states. Only 3/4 of all states are required to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

You said "Well, do you expect me to clarify this for you?" The word "this" in your sentence is a pronoun. What does it represent? In other words, please repeat that sentence but instead of using the word "this", use the word that represents what you are suggesting I expect you to clarify for me.

What do you mean by "this"?

What is my point about what? I was just answering the questions you asked.

No No Yes No No No

Seriously? You've used that term twice in your last four posts. You sound like you are bored and have nothing better to do than see how long people will respond to you.

Is 'contact' the same as 'touching'? There is an interaction. People get diseases. You can call it whatever you want, and you can define 'touching' however you want, but the fact is we get disease through this interaction.

But you didn't say "African population expansion", did you? You said "Some would say "Black lives" or Blacks are an enormous existential problem." If you are not trolling, you are certainly doing a wonderful imitation of it. As did StringJunky.

So by your use of the term, you were 'name calling' when you called people 'black'. Therefore I would like to respond to your 'existential' post by saying: Yes, I can well believe that your political and intellectual analyses extend as far as name-calling.

"Name calling" implies an insult. It is not name calling if it is simply an accurate description. It is not 'name calling' if I call you 'short' as long as you are short, and it is not name calling if I call you a racist bigot, if you are indeed one.