John Cuthber

It would be just as cheap in adult men if you decided that you didn't need hospital conditions or an anaesthetic. The "he won't remember it" could be applied to all sorts of child abuse. Do you consider that fact to detract in some way from the moral repugnance of the abuse?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/handegg What really grinds my gears isn't people who don't know better, but people who stubbornly refuse to learn better.

Some of the mercury will be lost by evaporation

Can we set up a special part of the site (probably within "speculations" or the trash can) for people who pop up with something that they label as a "theory" but which barely counts as speculation? It would reduce clutter in the other areas of the forum. Essentially every time someone opens a thread with something like "I have been working on this theory ...", my reaction - before I even look at their post-i s "no, you have almost certainly not not", and I don't think I'm the only one. Why do we offer resources to people who can't even be bothered to find out what the word "theory" means in the context of science?

There are some pros and cons to this. For the most part, the "important" ones affect adults. So there's plenty of time to allow "junior" to grow up and form his own opinion about it. So, why pretend that you need to make the decision for him?

The traditional approach is to put a copper box in the oven, spaced away from all the walls + the floor. Inside the box, the temperature will be very much more even than outside it.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. You say. "A greedy algorithm is an algorithm that sacrifices accuracy" and "not all greedy algorithms sacrifice accuracy" which one is right? Also,. bubble sorts are not (generally) fast.

If I realise that contentment does not stem from owning the latest 'phone then, given my secular nature, I have shown that Dimreepr is wrong. He won't accept this.

No, you did not. And, if you had done so, people would simply have pointed out that you are wrong- just as Bender has done.

Are you trolling, or do you somehow think that talking about fear answers a question about contentment? It might- if fear were the only cause of discontentment. It's not. Now, why don't you just own up to being utterly wrong?

"Just as I begin to pose my evidence and reasoning behind My claim that there Is a mathematical Phi and one of nature My thread is closed!" OK, this time hurry up and get to the evidence.

It's not an insult to say that (some) Jews write G_d. It's just true. It's also no insult to use it as an example of things that some people do which are perceived as odd by others- that's also just true. It's not an insult for him to wonder if some of the odd tings you write are as a result of a similar religious conviction. It's a little impolite to point out that your use of English was sometimes a bit odd.

I wondered that; perhaps he changed his mind.

I haven't jumped on any bandwagon. The reason why I agree with other's assessment is simple- it's backed up by evidence. On the other hand, do you realise that misnaming people just looks childish?

To get the right answer. Imagine that I wanted to know the pitch of the horn of a car as it passed. The Doppler shift would mean that, as it approached the pitch I heard would be too high, and after it passed the pitch would be too low. However if I calculate the harmonic mean of the two frequencies I hear as it passes, I get the right frequency. Since practically everything in the universe is moving away from us we "hear" it as unrealistically low pitched. The red shift calculation lets us allow for that.

You can get "off the peg" frequency meters for microwaves that give 10 digit precision. I think the state of the art is something like 15 digit accuracy these days. Since the standard (I mean THE standard) for timekeeping is a microwave emission, it's a relatively simple step to measure microwave frequencies. So there's little point worrying about the precision of the measurement. The thing about wmap and other such observations is that they show that the CMB is slightly different, depending on what direction you look. So if the match between (phi times the number of fingers we have raised to the power 11) and ( a 19th century measurement of the (constantly varying) spin of the Earth) was good enough then you would be able to point to bits of the sky where they matched. (it's not) It won't have changed much over as short an interval as decades- but it started out as the unimaginably hot early universe where hydrogen was just starting to form and where the emission frequency would have been something like a million times higher. The fact that, as it falls, it passes through some arbitrary value- which is significant only because we happen to have 10 fingers- at the time we are looking at it is just a coincidence. The sort of thing that numerology is based on.

To be fair, it's not my real name. In any event, it's a bit like having a 3 year old shouting "you are horrid and you smell of wee!". Not desirable, but it's not something I'd take seriously.

Well, Wiki tells me that "The spectral radiance dEν/dν peaks at 160.23 GHz, in the microwave range of frequencies" from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background So it's not phi. If we were able to study it for a long time we would fins that it was falling slowly as the universe expands. So, the current value which it happen to have now- as we look at it- is a coincidence. Did you think it was somehow relevant to the thread? Anyway, did you recognise that Your describing my post as "dribble" is evidence that you don't want valid criticism. And your insistence that a near coincidence of the (current) peak in the µwave background and phis might be meaningful is numerology and it's a contrived near-coincidence that can't have any meaning? Now do you see thet Strange's comments were perfectly reasonable?

No That doesn't make any sense. The fact that I have commented on it implies that I have seen it, but I'm not a moderator so your post is gibberish.

If they don't register in your brain as being fair comment then it's you who has a problem.

No real evidence of one. And, with no evidence of a pattern, there's no way to "game" the system. The good news is that you aren't going to get into trouble. The bad news is that you aren't going to make money.

Strange's "Jews" reference is pushing good taste slightly but then again: are you the guy who wrote "If these don't register in your brain as being insulting to I then either your AI or probably Chinese! "? Because that's no better. However, if you think that someone said something they shouldn't, the correct response is to report it as koti has pointed out. I'm now going to report this thread asking for it to be closed because it's pointless

You have to go back to near the start of the thread to find the context which was Dimreepr's assertion that " I DO believe the bible to contains wisdom that seems to elude secularism. ... bible, was never intended to be taken literally, it's a collection of stories and parables designed to teach other people how to be content; " He's saying that there is no secular "textbook" by which you could learn the wisdom of how to be content.. A contented baby shows that there's no requirement for "teaching" contentment in the way he suggested was only possible through the Bible. (I'm assuming that a baby's thoughts are secular and thus Dimreepr's comment on things that elude secularism must elude babies.)

Because we carefully checked it and found that you can't win.

You said the Bible teaches us to be content. So, since the baby is content, he must- by your daft idea- have been taught it by the Bible. I grant you that he didn't need to read it, but he does need to understand it for your weird idea to hold up.