Phi for All

The galaxy on your left, or left hand, in the simulated picture. Terms don't get much more layman than that.

What are you doing to reduce the subjective nature of many of your criteria? Surely "talent" isn't something we have the ability to objectively measure? Similarly, greed, violence, stability, and many of the others you mention depend on the person, so you need to remove as much subjectivity from your arguments as possible. Also, you talk about energies as if they are a thing instead of a property of a thing. Can I borrow a cup of energy? So you're applying a term that already has definitions in physics in a way that makes no sense. Are you eventually going to claim that talent creates gravity?

The Slump brand certainly is taking a hit. Vance will end up being a hot potato, a liability if you keep him and an even worse liability if Slump drops him for Haley. And it seems like his wounded/not wounded ear gave Slump no bump, like nobody cared.

You have multiple theories?! What does "placeholder label" mean to you, and what does it reconcile? I've heard it explained as an unknown like x, but we do know something about it. It has mass that accounts for missing matter in our galactic rotation calculations and is invisible and transparent to EM radiation. That's at least part of what "dark" means. I suppose the name may change when we can explain it more accurately, but maybe not. Yet some folks place a lot of importance in the name only being a "placeholder label".

It might help to read it all through. Part of the problem here is that you think "everything is alive and full of different species", but that doesn't apply to some of the things you list in your OP, like black holes, nucleus, particles, atoms, globes, energies, and materials (matter?). Lots of matter is inorganic, not living, and energy is a property of a thing instead of a thing itself. Some things aren't things at all, they're events, like lightning and black holes and fire. The various branches of science help give us our best supported explanations of phenomena specific to those branches. If you're looking for "how many different worlds exist in nature", the branches each deal with scale in different ways.

Yes. You should have given us enough in the OP to make comments and start a discussion. So far, I know you want us to see dark matter as time, and this involves believing in something. Nothing since has explained or persuaded anything about the topic. OK. Always make sure your sources aren't pushing some popular POV just to get attention. "We call it dark because it doesn't interact with light" sounds like a pop-sci treatment. exchemist used a more accurate phrase regarding the interaction: DM is invisible and transparent to EM radiation. Great! Um, you still haven't given us any speculation, other than it's complicated and it may involve believing that DM is time. What are you talking about?

Is this close to what you're looking for? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science

Seems like a complete waste of two seconds. It's actually a bit deeper than that. Please focus on this bit about seeing dark matter as time. Also, please do so without this element of belief, unless this belief is supportable. I believe in photosynthesis because I trust the explanation and have loads of evidence in support. If your belief is base on faith or wishful thinking, it's not science. I'm so grateful science doesn't work this way! Imagine if everyone who didn't understand an explanation could get everybody else to drop it too, claiming they're just wasting their time. We'd never progress at all. Thanks to all the tireless researchers who don't think rigor is a waste!

How much have you studied the divisions between the sciences that we already have? What is lacking about the way we classify them now? Why is science so incredibly accurate if we're missing these divisions?

Scientists are responding with mainstream science answers to your questions. Humans have a vast repository of accumulated knowledge, things we've tested before so we can predict what they will do with great accuracy. Mainstream science is based on these best supported explanations for various phenomena. Your ideas are NOT based on mainstream science. You have chosen to make up other explanations that make sense only to you. This isn't how science is done, so you don't feel as if you're being helped. You should study more mainstream science.

How much time on average does POTUS spend in Air Force One as opposed to the Oval Office?

That was only for the first day you joined. We do that to cut down on spam. You can post as much as you like. You misunderstand, I think. You aren't wasting anyone's time, it's just a controversial subject. We've had people join and use ChatGPT to have discussions with us, and we've seen the program fail when it comes to science accuracy, so some of us may be biased. We attack ideas here, but we try not to attack people. You are welcome here. How can this bias, which must have been introduced in the first place, be fixed using your idea?

Shouldn't matter their gender, pick the best person for the job, right? It's an exceedingly easy sentiment to hold, isn't it? But it implies that there aren't already more qualified women and/or people of color out there, that we're skipping over better white men just to fill a quota or something. My stance is that, if you find presidential candidates of equal qualifications, the woman has more potential to change the corrupt system from within. They've been stifled in politics ever since their participation was allowed. Their perspective is badly needed. We know what the old white man will do if he's elected, they've shown this. Multiple studies have shown that women leaders in business create a better work environment: https://www.apa.org/topics/women-girls/female-leaders-make-work-better So look for the best qualified candidate, by all means. I bet it's going to be a woman, and I bet a LOT of men will disagree. Because that's what we've historically done.

I'm not willing to assume he is, even for the purpose of this statement. I think it's much more likely that there are at least ten women right now who are more qualified, who haven't been considered because of gender and ethnicity. And while women have served in modern presidential administrations, they haven't been in charge, haven't been POTUS, and I would hope that makes a big difference. I did no such thing. I also think men in general have a better focus on a single task than women in general. I have no evidence that this is a holdover from hunter/gatherer days, but it's always seemed this way to me. Hunters hunt meat, gatherers gather everything else. Focus vs big picture, not oaf vs mastermind. I think we've excluded women from too much in the past, and having both perspectives united again can only be a boon for all of us. I also love the diversity I see people embracing lately! David Attenborough's special on his testimony regarding climate change made a big impression on me, where he said his whole life had shown him that nature's great strength lay in its diversity, and that we should use it as a blueprint for future endeavors. I think rich old white American men have set themselves up at the expense of the rest of the world, and we should stop giving them the power to make it worse.

If I'm being honest, no old white guy should be president for a while. The perspective is limited and hasn't been representative of much of the USA for quite some time. It's also pretty insulting to insinuate that Harris isn't fit, and that (honestly) this MAN would be better, and that's part of the reason why I think this "man's job" attitude needs to die. I think most women have a better grasp of the big picture than most men do, and I'd love to see a woman in charge finally help this country be more than a swindle for the wealthy.

I appreciate that you think highly of these AI language programs, and choose to answer/not answer my questions by using those same programs, but the results of even this small exchange make me doubt the benefits you mention. To me, it implies that adopting AI for any meaningful scientific exchange can be detrimental. I am still curious about the inherent bias in the AI systems that deny loan applications disproportionately to people of color. Can your program help me understand without a bunch of bullet points? A discussion forum should be more like a conversation than a lecture.

You don't mention the ethics involved, but your references do. Why is banking AI discriminating against black loan applicants, as mentioned in the Cambridge study? Why would businesses who wished to be inclusive use it as a model?

Consider as well that our morals, our compassion for one another, matches up well with our ability to overcome physical limitations through intelligent means. Our animal nature, the one that served us well as animals, is something to be overcome now, imo, now that we're smart enough to know that time and smart will heal a broken leg or fix bad eyesight. Our human nature, the one where we override base instincts with compassion, cooperation, and communication, is what made us the dominant life form. If we could now spread the smart instead of insisting on being animals again....

Do you have a science-related question? This seems like you're marketing a product and want input to help your sales.

Evidence in support of this? There's evidence against it, like gravity is accounted for in three spatial dimensions. Spacetime curvature works with three spatial and one temporal dimension. Wouldn't there be some gravity that "leaked" into another spatial dimension?

Nicram has been banned. They wanted to drag some trolling from another site to here, and also can't be bothered with rules. Buh-bye.

! Moderator Note Thread closed. Don't bring this up again, since you can't be bothered with the rules.

Imagine that! People changing century by century! It's more like you don't understand evolution. ... who are overly judgemental about large groups they don't bother to know much about. So you hate the way people dress, their hygiene, the way they speak, their manners, and their education. You think everyone should meet your standards, otherwise they deserve nothing but your derision. You also equate homelessness and mental retardation with felonies and illegality. I think people who think like you are one of the biggest detriments to human society. You're judgemental to the point of unreasonableness, and unwilling to see your fellow humans as anything but above or below you instead of living side by side. Your stances disgust me frankly, and I hope attitudes like yours die off very soon, since nobody interested in being smart needs that kind of ignorance.

! Moderator Note Let's see if anyone understands it well enough to discuss it with you. I certainly don't.

! Moderator Note Please don't post link-only openers. Give us a direction for the discussion, and do it in a way that members don't have to click on a link in order to participate.