Phi for All

Dark is not just unknown though, it also describes not interacting with the EM spectrum. Junk implies worthlessness.

! Moderator Note Stop this. We attack ideas here, not people. If you seriously think these professionals waste their science discussion time trolling, you're never going to learn from them. I highly recommend you dismount from that overly tall horse.

I remember reading somewhere that "junk" was an unfortunate thing to name what we didn't understand. Now we're discovering that, much like macro "junk", there are lots of uses we didn't know about.

Multiple time dimensions would lead to a universe with very unstable properties. Much of physics wouldn't work the way we know it does.

This is a breakthrough for you intellectually as well. Now if you could just stop cherry-picking the criticisms of your idea, and realize ALL the comments have been constructive....

To find the joy. This isn't true, but that's off-topic. I found some joy in this old joke reference! Thanks!

Then could you please do everyone a favor and stop whining about the enforcement of rules you agreed to when you joined?

Aye, there's the rub, though. How much is "not too expensive" when compared to terrestrial mining? If it costs more to extract and bring it back, your profits on it aren't as good. If you found an asteroid of gold, it would be far smarter to make it available for offplanet endeavors. That's when the cost of your space gold will be far better than the cost of terrestrial gold.

I think you need parameters for the differing types of "belief". We all have belief systems that let us take on knowledge at varying levels of importance and credibility. The divisions I personally make wrt belief are faith, hope, and trust. Faith asks for belief without reason, hope is wishful thinking, and trust is belief based on testable, predictable facts and reasoning. With these parameters, you can more easily assess the levels of what you believe. I hope there are. There's no real evidence to trust, and I don't blindly believe higher dimensions exist. I can hope and hold out for more evidence without making extreme assertions or changing my life. Why? From information I can trust I believe any higher dimension that currently exists are simply part of the geometry of the universe. I don't see why. Must life have a meaning beyond what I personally invest in it? What is the meaning of life with god(s) in it? Guess which deity is the right one, then worship them to show you have utmost faith, and appease them for a few decades in order to achieve eternal paradise? And what about weak atheism? I don't believe god(s) exist, but I don't claim they don't either. I trust that since they aren't observable, they hold no importance for me. I treat religion the same way I treat stamp collecting. If a stamp comes along that shows me I've been wrong, I'm willing to be persuaded.

Invision is some fairly standard forum software. I suppose the alternative to having moderators manually check duplicate accounts would be to let the system Flag As Spammer, but that would flag you for any other forum using the same software, iirc. You're welcome. Spare me the righteous anger over being caught breaking the rules though. You're yelling at the cops because you didn't know about the alarm system.

We suspected it due to the content and proximity. We did the math, and we made a prediction: You'd admit it if we behaved as if we knew for certain. Then we observed whether the prediction held true or not. We were prepared to read a goat's entrails, but thankfully the scientific method was enough, as always.

Another rule is you can only have one account. Do you want to keep this one or the AUDI R6 account?

If you want specifics about genetics, you need to ask specific questions. Heritability usually references quantitative traits like height and IQ which are passed down directly through the population over time by variation in the genes. Some traits don't vary, like having 4 limbs and 5 digits at the end of each limb, and are considered more of a basic genetic program. I hadn't heard about attitudes being heritable, but a quick search revealed a discussion here at SFN: I haven't finished it yet, but thought I'd share it.

! Moderator Note Nobody is attacking you personally, either. It's your strange ideas about spacetime that are being attacked, because science.

You certainly didn't persuade anyone here, so you didn't make any sound arguments. You've convinced yourself you did, and now are just soapboxing. You aren't listening, or learning, or teaching anybody anything. Its easy to make things up, and call anyone who agrees with you "powerful".

The presence of mass/energy IS spacetime curvature. Two pieces of dust in space, outside any other influence, will each curve spacetime enough to meet. How little mass do you think you need before spacetime doesn't curve? Perhaps the ISS can test this for you.

"Enough" is any amount.

Not successfully. Your arguments are similar to a puddle's argument that the world fits it perfectly. I have no reason at all to trust your guesswork. This doesn't even make semantic sense, since the worshippers of a god don't necessarily define it. Mars and Ares were the same god, so was Mars Roman and Ares Greek?

Time was considered an independent dimension before Einstein, who showed how "spacetime" is a continuum that can't be separated.

Can you list three?

It's difficult to imagine what a fourth spatial dimension is needed for, outside of mathematics. We use three spatial and one temporal dimension as a coordinate system to figure out when and where a particular event takes place. If we both know what x, y, z, and t are, we can arrange to meet (40.748817, -73.985428, +767 feet, 8/3/2019 1PM UTC tells you to come to the 59th floor of the Empire State Building at 9am local time tomorrow).

Think about this. If a model is eliminated because a better experiment shows it's wrong, nothing new is going to surface. Science can prove something is wrong, but it can't prove something is right. If one model is eliminated in favor of a different model, it's because it was wrong. THAT is what the extra experiment showed. New evidence can always surface, but once something is proven wrong, nothing can reverse that. How could it? My hypothesis that all swans are white gets proven wrong by a single instance of a black swan. What new evidence could reverse that? My new hypothesis, that all swans are white or black, no matter how much evidence I compile, will never be proof. It would remain, at most, a theory until all swans (ever) were accounted for. Also, you should NEVER say it's "just a theory". A theory is far better than an answer (have you read what some people consider to be "answers"?). Theory is as strong as it gets in science. It's a guarantee we'll always keep working on the problem, and not just assume we know an "answer".

The verb in your first sentence is "am" (from "I am"), first person present indicative form of "be". This verb is missing in your second sentence. You "will be more careful about that" (in the future). English can be weird. You sound enthusiastic about science, but haven't studied it as much as you would like. Then your translator is trying to make sense of you trying to make sense of "complex analysis and real science", and the result is very hard to understand. Science has some very specific definitions so this kind of confusion is usually avoided. Terminology is very important.

! Moderator Note This has been on the staff's mind all day too. We're going to remove the word "medication" from the title, move this to Chemistry, and caution everyone that we are NOT advising anyone on any aspect of their meds here.

The administration/party that openly hates foreigners right now would hardly support letting foreigners monitor our elections. How do you open internet voting when imposing the necessary security on the internet falls right into the hands of those who want to control and abuse it?