DrmDoc

As I said, I don't agree with the video's conclusion or whether any of the probabilities discussed are valid. However, it seemed an interesting topic for discussion in a science forum, which is why I posted a link here. According to the video's assumptions, the probability of our being in a simulation is higher than our being a creation of some celestial being. Although I don't believe either is true, there isn't much of a distinction between the two in my opinion.

It isn't my question per se, but rather the question raised by the video link I provide above. Also, the video appears to be discussing probabilities rather than truths and, as I'm sure you are aware, probability is a determinant of math. In terms of probability, I can't say that I agree with the video's conclusions or whether any of the probabilities discussed at valid.

That's the question this entertaining AsapSCINCE video asks and seeks to answer. According to the this video's host, the math suggests that we are more likely simulations in a program developed by more advanced humans than products of some celestial creator. What are your thoughts?

Yes, but I think it reveals Trump's true agenda, which is likely business first, jobs last.

Here's a Bloomberg article that asks, "Remember when Trump said he saved 1,100 jobs at a Carrier plant?" As his faithful are beginning to discover, this was another promise the Donald was incapable of keeping. From the last paragraph of the article:

According to The Guardian, investigators are organizing a new search for the elusive Queensland (Australia) thylacine after reported sightings of the believed extinct animal by reliable sources. The sad history of this last marsupial predator includes being hunted to extinction because of it's ferocious appearance rather than any potential threat to livestock or humans. Before recent sightings of at least 4 individuals, the last living specimen of thylacinus is believed to have died in a Hobart zoo in 1936. If found, I welcome its rediscovery and encourage its protection from those apex predators (humans) responsible for its extinctions elsewhere.

Some of you may have misunderstood the title of this thread. The science of hypnosis refers to the research of this technique's effects through methods in science rather than a reference to hypnosis as science. Hypnosis is not a science but there has been scientific investigation of hypnosis to either prove or disprove its effects--which is what the SciShow link above provides.

According to the New York Times article, the museum's curator commented, "He is so close to us. He uses the same equipment as we do when he goes to the mountain, just the materials are different. And we are still killing each other, so maybe there hasn’t been so much evolution after all.” I thought, why would there be any expectation that we are any less primitive in behavior than our ancestors 5000 years old? I don't think 5000 years is a very long time for humanity to change its nature without intervention.

Years ago, I was a constant tea drinker when I noticed the frequency of my urgency to urinate. Knowing that the caffeine in tea is a diuretic, I stopped drinking tea and all other sources of caffeine. It was difficult, but I get by now with an occasional cup perhaps once a month. However, after suspending my caffeine intake, I continued to wake with urgency at night and morning. By that time, tap-water was the dominant source of my liquid intake until hearing a report about how our city supplied water may contain a whole host of unfiltered drugs flushed into its system as waste byproducts or as disposal through discontinued use. After switching to bottled spring water, my urgency went away. I can now sleep an entire night and not awake having to use the loo. I haven't altered my diet much since then and may even have a higher salt intake. So, I think the jury's still out on this one because my experience convinces me that other factors could be involved.

When does government surveillance goes too far? When government surveils me. If we're honest, I think most of us would give that answer. However, government may have reasons to surveil its citizens that are acceptable particularly when the surveillance involve threats against the security of our nation from both national and international sources. I'm a relatively private person but I understand our government's position in that if a citizen is doing nothing illegal and the information government collects will be held private, why should any citizen object?

It seems a Munich Detective may have solved a 5000 year old murder case. According to this New Times article, Inspector Alexander Horn was invited to investigate the murder of Otzi by the director of the Italian Museum where the mummified remains of the 5000 year old corpse is stored. Inspector Horn has determined that Otzi died as a result of an ambush after he had finished a meal rather than having managed a desperate mountain escape with mortal injuries after some combat. Otzi's wound was immediately fatal and Inspector Horn theorizes that Otzi was probably involved in an earlier conflict and was later hunted down and killed as revenge because Otzi's supplies were not taken after his death. It's an interesting article. Enjoy!

The Federal Government has been meddling in our lives since before we were born and it's a good thing too because our lives would likely be miserable without it. Think about the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the New Deal which are, in many cases, our government meddling in our lives to our benefit against big business and poverty. Consider that you visit a science forum because, in some measure, you believe in the scientific method. If you do, then that method should lead you to a thorough analysis of the positions you hold against our government beyond those merely based on anecdotal experiences or unsubstantiated evidence. Consider all the true facts and evidence of what has transpired since 2008--not what's spewed by media and politicos--and ask yourself whether America truly isn't great already.

If you reread my initial comments in my previous post, you will see where I wrote that those engineering links content were from sources published "prior" to the I article I linked in my original post at the start of this thread. As I further conveyed, that original article suggested fired played a role more significant than what may or may not have been included in prior engineering reports. It's inconceivable that a gash that stretched 300 ft. from below the waterline to above that marker would not be "relevant to the sinking." Nevertheless, according to this engineering review link I provided, "the Titanic sideswiped the iceberg, damaging nearly 300 feet of the right side of the hull above and below the waterline [Gannon, 1995]." I suggest you have another look. From the article in my original link: "Journalist Senan Molony, who has spent more than 30 years researching the sinking of the Titanic, studied photographs taken by the ship’s chief electrical engineers before it left Belfast shipyard. Mr Maloney said he was able to identify 30ft-long black marks along the front right-hand side of the hull, just behind where the ship’s lining was pierced by the iceberg. He said: “We are looking at the exact area where the iceberg stuck, and we appear to have a weakness or damage to the hull in that specific place, before she even left Belfast”. Experts subsequently confirmed the marks were likely to have been caused by a fire started in a three-storey high fuel store behind one of the ship’s boiler rooms. A team of 12 men attempted to put out the flames, but it was too large to control, reaching temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Celsius." Apparently, according to that article, there was indeed some evidence suggesting a sustained, high temperature fire. Which further suggests some unique circumstance surrounding the Titanic's sinking...a high temperature coal fire, perhaps? According to the originally linked article, "Officers on board were reportedly under strict instruction from J Bruce Ismay, president of the company that built the titanic, not to mention the fire to any of the ship’s 2,500 passengers." This appears to provide a plausible explanation for the absence of any fire references in Titanic's history as you've concluded. If Titanic's sister ship was built of the same material and sustained comparable impacts amid comparable ocean temperatures, as your comments seem to suggest to me, why didn't it sink? All I'm suggesting is that if the information in the original article is as credible as it seems, then it is indeed likely that an extraordinary fire event contributed significantly to the sinking of the Titanic--in my opinion.

By no means would I advocate letting any politician off the hook for their despicable deeds and behaviors. Although I hope for the best but expect the worse, I support holding their feet to the fire and accountable for the actions.

Wow, it was all a political game and we fell for it? Politicians, they should all burn in hell.

Ok. Here are links to a Titanic Facts link, I believe it's highly probable that a sustained, high temperature fire could have exacerbated weaknesses contributing to Titanic's hull and rivets failures.

My only concern now is that this reversal may cause some voters to view Republican less unfavorably for the mid-term elections. If anything, their efforts have quite convincingly shown how little they care about our poor and vulnerable citizens.

Even by your definition, weather forecasts could be considered precognition. However, the distinction between such forecasts and precognition, as I understand, is that the latter appears to be a result of unconscious thought and perception processes while the former a result of conscious observations and consciously directed activity. Although both involve predictions based on evidence perceived, precognition appears to involve evidence perceived below our threshold of conscious awareness rendering such evidence without a basis in observations directed by conscious analysis. The effect of all this is knowing an outcome without consciously knowing how you perceived or determined that outcome.

Jubilation! Republican efforts to repeal and replace the ACA have failed, Sen. Paul Ryan has just announced that, so-called, Obamacare remains the "law of the land." The poor and vulnerable can rest assured, at least for a day or so, until this adminstration and the Republican led Congress again attempt to deprive them of necessary and affordable healthcare.

Unlike many who visit here and post to science forums, I'm convinced that precognition is indeed possible. My confidence comes from almost 40 years of trying to understand the true nature of mind and consciousness. That effort has led me to neuroscience and, particularly, the study of unconscious brain function. From what I've managed to understand, precognition isn't a quality of conscious brain function but rather an effect of our brain's unconscious ability to perceive and consolidate diverse sensory information to project probable outcomes. Unconsciously, we are privy to sensory information that doesn't reach our conscious awareness due to our conscious mental focus on waking pursuits. Precognitive experiences can emerge as our waking brain state surrenders to unconscious states such as dreaming. Although precognition is not the purpose of dreaming, dreaming is a unconscious state of brain activation wherein the brain engages cognitive activity unencumbered by the physical/material perception of true reality and experience. Amid this unencumbered state, I believe our mind is capable of extraordinary fetes of perception.

Remember? I continue to use it for my occasional cup of tea. For some reason, perhaps psychological, tea taste better to me when I boil water the old-fashion way. I think that Titanic's initially unstable hull, when heated sufficiently, would likely have negated the cooling effects of the ocean particularly above the waterline where almost 300 feet of hull damage was determined.

It seems that Trump and the wealthy 1% have a studied and confirmed penchant for lying and cheating. I was recently reminded of this 2012 PNAS study wherein research suggests "Higher social class predicts unethical behaviors." From the abstract: Although a dated study, Trump's alt-facts--most recently Obama spying accusations--convincingly validate this study's conclusions.

They who and how? Please, elaborate. As for me, today I learned 28 fascinating facts about the history of cosmetics. Throughout history, a surprising amount used lead as a key component.

This recent evidence, Wikipedia notwithstanding, suggests that the fire was never extinguished and, if the steel quality was as subpar as Jim S. recalls, then this is more than probable evidence of hull failure caused by the fire. The chill of the ocean water against one side of the hull would be an insufficient coolant, in my opinion, against a large and sustained coal fire. When I think of coal fires, I'm reminded of Centralia, Pennsylvania, where an inextinguishable coal mine fire has burned unabated since 1962. Such fires are notoriously difficult to extinguish.

It's my understanding, from the recent evidence, that the fire was never extinguish and continued to rage until the ship struck an iceberg. Also, as I understand, it was the steel hull rather than the rivets that sustain substantial weakening over the extimated ten days the fire burned. It's highly likely that both hull and rivets--being made of steel--were weakened by the coal fire that reached an also estimated high of 1000 C, which is close to the smelting point of steel at 1350 C. I believe that weakened steel made the hull vulnerable to rupture from contact with the iceberg.