Phi for All

! Moderator Note Are you accusing or admitting? Can you please do everyone a favor and report a post with an explanation if you think it's breaking the rules, rather than tossing a cryptic post into the conversation? Thank you.

And like the gods, these copy universes can't be detected, observed, or measured, so there's no way to test the idea, which means any proponents are just waving their hands. If you really want to do some science in this regard, you should figure out how these exact copies could affect the universe, and then test for that. Prediction is one of science's best tools, but you can't base it on woo and poor reasoning.

Using science to judge evidence it considers supernatural is not a potentially successful approach. It's like measuring how much concrete you need for your driveway using poetry. If you mean a fourth spatial dimension, there are very sound physical reasons why a universe like that would be unstable. From what I've seen, none of these alternate reality proposals are testable in any way. Does this video propose a way to do that?

yes.

! Moderator Note You're in the wrong thread, that's all. Fight your weight, or pick another poker table, or just ask questions and learn. There's nothing wrong with admitting you're out of your league IN THIS INSTANCE, and there's a whole lot wrong with walking into a conversation with complaints about it's high intellectual level. Seriously, would you walk into any other specialty group discussing something and demand they stop using words you don't understand? It's not always about you. No more off-topic chatter. Stick to the subject.

! Moderator Note I'd say you're off topic for this thread. You don't have to respond if you don't understand. Please open a thread and let everyone know at what level you wish to discuss the topic you choose. Please don't hijack someone else's thread.

! Moderator Note Several off-topic posts have been split to their own thread here:

Ken is gone now. He couldn't stay civil in the face of so many requests for clarity, and we were too focused on understanding what he was talking about to stop asking questions.

Enjoy your day, Ken123456.

Another distinction we make here: we don't attack people, we attack their ideas. This either makes the ideas stronger, or shows their weaknesses. Other than one poster calling you a moron (which they were called out for), where were YOU personally attacked? You don't get to claim that you and your beliefs are one. I'm sure it's what Jesus would have wanted, with him being so warlike and all. I call it ass-backwards. If the god you believe in exists, it sounds like he doesn't need you to defend him. Fully attacking someone who doesn't share your belief in the supernatural sounds unhinged, like "aggression from Jesus". Do you also think of others as closed-minded if they don't share your rigid views on your god? That's part of why you've been accused of proselytizing.

OK, that's your interpretation of the passage. Stop implying it's the only one that's true in your arguments. Stop using language that asserts these things as fact, when in reality it's part of your religion, and is no more valid in this regard than any other religion. Even your views on Christianity aren't shared across all 9000+ sects recognized as practicing Christians. Again, does this make any sense to you at all?

I don't know what that means either. I suppose we take it for granted here that there is a big difference between saying, "As a Christian, I believe what the Bible says about the devil corrupting men's souls if they turn away from God", and making an unsupported, preachy assertion like, "Presently Satan owns the Earth and all who do not wish God to be their savior". Can you see the difference? The first is clearly a statement about religious beliefs, and the second is claiming something is true no matter what anybody else thinks. We don't like assertions here that you can't back up with reason and evidence. They stop a good discussion in its tracks. And while Christianity is certainly a religion, and shares certain scriptures with other major religions, in scientific terms they all make claims that are considered supernatural. Science is focused on the natural world, but we've found religious topics can be discussed somewhat reasonably as long as nobody is standing on their soapbox claiming to know the Truth. Does that make sense to you?

I've re-read our exchange several times now and fail to see how this relates to your topic here? Did I supposedly say this? Is this somehow referring to your exchange with Strange, and not this thread? We're trying to get to the bottom of your complaint here, and would appreciate some help with clarity.

! Moderator Note If it's a study, can you post the link and abstract here, so the members can decide if this is a subject worth getting involved in? If it's just an article, can you provide an overview of the arguments, and perhaps give us your perspective? All of this will facilitate a good discussion of your topic.

We make the distinction here that people can open idiotic threads, but it's uncivil and inaccurate to call someone an idiot. One doesn't imply the other, so that can't be the disgusting part. Also, "beliefs" in this context are ideas you're unable to support with reason and proper methodology, including evidence. We make it VERY clear that we consider such to be essential to meaningful discussion. Nothing disgusting about that. Admonishing members about breaking the rules and requiring them NOT to do it again is one of a moderator's duties. If you find this disgusting, there are TONS of sites with little or no supervision, where you can make up anything you like. We aren't one of those, that's all.

! Moderator Note This is a difficult admission, but a sensible one. A couple of things, though. You didn't quit. Your idea was refuted through discussion, and that's the way this works. Discussion helps fill the gaps in our knowledge, and shows us where we need to study more. So the other thing is, you don't need to be sorry for posting your idea. You need to stay and join some other discussions, ask questions, and keep learning. It's obvious you're smart. Thanks for posting and taking the time to respond to critical examination. I'll close this thread and hope to see more.

We've already landed probes on asteroids hundreds of millions of miles away using our "flawed" concept of time. I'm not sure that's possible if we have it wrong, not even by a little bit. I think the kind of "care" you're talking about is far too subjective for science. We observe that our models using spacetime coordinates are accurate to an astonishing degree, so to argue against our own best observations suggests we aren't viewing the problem with an objective eye.

I think lots of folks believe there is some fundamentally game-changing yet blindingly simple physical explanation that all of science is overlooking, an explanation that will shed light on all the things we still don't understand. I also think pop-sci authors often try to make time seem enigmatic and baffling, perhaps in an effort to say, "Hey, not even the experts understand this stuff, so you should take a shot and keep reading!" Time might seem like a good place to start for someone without a lot of science background to easily make a massive contribution to humanity.

I disagree. I think we should continue to hold the standards for the position of POTUS we've always held, and use that to decide where his behavior fails to be acceptable. "Figuring him out" is a distraction from judging his actions. The best you can hope to accomplish is no harm, because you aren't going to change anybody's mind about him with just your opinion. The worst that will happen is some folks will see your reasoning as an excuse for that behavior. Maybe not you, maybe none of us, but a big part of his propaganda is trashing others so it's harder to see his faults. He muddies the waters, and I think you're helping him by straying from the facts, by guessing at his motives, and by making this about so much more than the obvious crimes he's committed, his documented divisiveness, and the effects of his ignorant approach to leadership overall.

Thanks very much! Now what's all this about us leaving the EU?!

! Moderator Note Ignoring the members who showed it's not is called soapboxing, and it's against the rules, and you've done it a number of times. And now you're starting to re-write history and insult the members who take the time to respond. You've had long enough to support your arguments, and frankly you've failed. You're obviously smart, but you aren't discussing science, you're just trying to make the above sentence seem true. No more preaching, and this thread is closed. Don't open any more threads on this topic, you've gone quite toxic about it.

I think you try to get inside his mind too much and pretend you know how he thinks or what his cognitive processes are. There's absolutely no need. You don't need guesses when there's plenty of facts to suggest he's a complete incompetent propped up by rage, bluster, and money. I don't think you need to look any deeper for signs of rot, and I'm more than a little worried the crazy is going to get you if try to make sense of his irrational behavior.

! Moderator Note If you can support any of your assertions, please do. Otherwise, don't make them. Is there evidence that your god is real and other people's gods are false? NO, there is NOT, so refrain from basing arguments on things you can't support. And don't respond to these notes, taking the topic further off. If you don't know what evidence on a science discussion forum means, please refer to other threads or send a private message.

I interpreted it differently. To me, it came off more as "You're going to get a terrible president because the Democrats hate my hard work." Not an accident, just spoken in his standard "They disapprove of my greatness, and that's OK, I guess" passive-aggressive voice. Not an admission either. It was a threat. It was a dog whistle for his base to make sure this doesn't happen. Of your last two paragraphs, this is the only sentence you don't need to support. The rest of it is mostly assumptions and guesswork.

! Moderator Note Stay on topic, and stop preaching. You don't get to make unsupported claims like these, even in the Religion section. This is a science discussion forum.