Phi for All

! Moderator Note It's pretty obvious you aren't interested in understanding mainstream duality, and would rather soapbox your unsupported idea. Further, you've developed somewhat of an anti-intellectual strategy that guarantees continued ignorance in these areas. Since you've stopped asking questions in favor of preaching, this thread is closed.

So you're claiming that, IF space is infinite, it somehow means Earth would have an "unimaginably high" z-axis relative to other areas of space? Is that correct? Can you say why you think this? I don't see a connection between the finite/infinite nature of the universe and where our planet lies in a particular coordinate system.

Nothing definitive supports this. Space could be finite. Your uses of the words "high" and "place" don't make much sense in this context. Do you mean high in importance, high in altitude, high in... what? When you say place, are you talking about an order in a hierarchy, or a physical spot in the universe?

Time is how we measure duration. This is like saying "length cannot have a distance of more than zero meters". This is inconsistent with what we observe.

How did you come to the conclusion that "The evolution of human beings is fundamentally different from that of other creatures"? It's not true at all, so I'm curious why you think this. Humans are amazing, but we're not special wrt evolution. Evolution is blind to species, and is part of the biology of all living things.

Most of this shows a lack of understanding wrt evolution, and the rest is pretty vague. Innovation? I'd want to hear more about how bipedalism affects our cognition. And there were a LOT of other factors at work. Tool use and cooking food happened before we started walking upright, and they were essential to changing how we walked.

That's the power of making stuff up. Eventually it will come to you, and it will seem absolutely perfect. How could it not? It's based on the limited knowledge you have of the subject. It's part of the bias one has to remove as part of a rigorous methodology.

This isn't logic, and it shows that Strange was right, that you're mistaking logic with "this makes sense to me". If anything, this is closer to deductive reasoning. But it's not even that, since it assumes I know about New York in the first place, as well as some of its nicknames. It also assumes the vehicle isn't going to turn in the next 50 miles, AND that New York is my destination (I could be headed to New Rochelle).

Doesn't it make a difference that Denmark was actively trying to sell the Danish West Indies at the time, and the US wasn't the only interested buyer? I think that's what probably causing the furor over Trump's interest. Denmark and Greenland haven't been offering to sell, and we're at a point in our civilization where empire-building is seen as overly hostile and unnecessary.

Have you tried a couple of splashes of cold water, along with a little tissue paper? I take 81 mg of aspirin/day and don't have to do more than cold water, but I realize something like Warfarin may require something stronger. Witch Hazel has an astringent property to tighten the skin without alum, but it's liquid and that can interfere with clotting. If you're taking a prescription blood thinner, perhaps you could ask your doctor's office what to do about shaving/paper cuts. They may have better info on the introduction of aluminum through an open wound as well.

Denmark was facing the prospect of being annexed by Germany at the start of the Great War. The Americans were most likely going to occupy the Danish West Indies anyway, to keep it from the Germans. There was definitely some coercion going on, with plenty of rocks and hard places for the Danish to fall between. Few in the Danish West Indies wanted to be US citizens, given the predominantly black population and the US humanitarian stance at the beginning of the 20th century.

I would avoid any of them that advertise on discussion forums. Also, stay away from those that are vague and unclear, or don't give enough information. Above all, don't let them suggest that price and experience are the most important factors in academic editing.

This is where your mistake lies. False, falsify, and falsifiable are three different concepts in science. All swans have two eyes is a false statement (I found a picture of a one-eyed swan). The picture falsified the statement "all swans have two eyes". The fact that finding swans with more or less than two eyes would make the statement "all swans have two eyes" false means the statement is falsifiable. All swans have two eyes is a statement that can be checked to see if it's false (making it falsifiable), but we can't do any checks to be certain it's true.

Can you give an example? This is exactly the sort of thing the scientific method would rule out in peer review. Personal bias is pretty easy to spot, and evidence usually doesn't have a lot of leeway in its interpretation.

It's pretty simple, really. Can you think of a way to show something is false? Then it's falsifiable. But that's a great example. Finding a three-eyed swan is EXACTLY what would show "all swans have two eyes" to be a false statement. As a counter example, arguing that the Christian God exists is NOT falsifiable. Being unobservable, there's no way to perform adequate tests. There's no way to form a prediction based on observed behavior. Almost by definition, this god isn't going to show itself because that would destroy the reason behind the faith of its followers. Why is it nonsense? A single black swan is enough to disprove a statement like "all swans are white". But if I say "all swans are black or white", I can't prove that, not even if I check every living swan. I'd have to check every swan there ever was, or ever will be, and I'd have to be sure swans didn't live on any other planet in the universe as well. This is the basis for theory, the idea that we can only accumulate evidence in support rather than "proving" an idea. It's what keeps us searching for the most supported explanations, rather than answers we decide on and never go back to check.

! Moderator Note Dr Swanson is a working atomic physicist, not a "layman". His atomic clocks help regulate our global GPS system. Perhaps you should examine your own failings instead. Please focus on answering some of the questions you've been asked, and leave the professional qualifications out of it. It's clear you need some help with your concept, and you won't get it by rejecting mainstream physics. Focus on the details of your idea, and stop trying to teach physics.

I found it sad and disturbing and really hypocritical that you called a whole group of people "cowards", right after criticizing their objectivity and adherence to the scientific method. I don't know about the other downvote you got, but mine was because you made your criticism personal. Maybe it's just me, but when I find myself using the words "for no good reason", it means I didn't bother to look very hard for one.

! Moderator Note Please STOP the personal attacks NOW! Criticizing an explanation is allowed, criticizing a person's ability to produce one is not. If you don't understand the difference, you shouldn't be here.

No crazier than NOT telling us the outcome of the test.

The premise of a "line" has been rejected. It seems to be a real hangup in your reasoning process. What is it about human intelligence that you find linear?

And the old audio out cord is wrapped around all the equipment that's been added since, so it's waaaay longer than it needs to be.

I don't think anyone has been claiming you have. You mentioned early on that you weren't talking about a designer. If you exclude life?! Aren't you moving the goalposts a tad here? If you exclude life (which is more efficient at using and dissipating heat from the sun), you limit any movement to what inorganic matter can accomplish. I'm not impressed with your arguments at all.

I fail to see why. Are you saying humans (who are part of nature), designing laptops, implies somehow that nature designed them? Do you also think "nature" designed a beaver dam? Or was it the beavers? Surely it's much easier to assume that, like all animals evolving, we take advantage of the opportunities circumstances afford us? As I said, take away any part of why we're as intelligent as we are, and you have a very different outcome. By your reasoning, we could say that dogs were responsible for designing laptops, since we'd never have formed the societies we did without them.

Human intelligence isn't a linear phenomenon. It's layered and nuanced and affected by a myriad of experiences and chemistries. Think of all the separate aspects that led to our being able to develop beyond hunting and gathering like any other animal. There are so many, and if any one of them failed to happen, we'd be very different, and most likely not as successful. Take away any single aspect, like animal husbandry, or our rich languages, or even eating cooked food, and you lose a lot of what we think of as human intelligence. There is no line.

! Moderator Note You need to immediately seek the help of local professionals. We don't give medical or legal advice here. Please contact people who can physically help you. We want you to have the best chance to solve these problems.