Phi for All

This seems so hypocritical to me, since the Abrahamic god will send you to hell for eternity while it's loving all of us equally. But this is the number one benefit to god imo; one can use it to manipulate the fearful and ignorant.

These are old tactics being employed using modern techniques. Hold up a strawman, tell the people that the strawman is responsible for all their woes, and let the people beat the crap out of the strawman. It's all to take focus off the real problem, the uber wealthy and their unearned, unethical, and unbelievably selfish manipulation of our society.

I like this part, for a T-shirt or a tombstone. The rest sounds like your microphone wasn't working at the start the joke.

There are over a dozen warning signs of fascism, and most can be spun in the fascist's favor. For instance, when Trump banned travel from Muslim countries under the guise of protecting the nation from terrorists entering the country, many applauded him. In actuality what he did was unconstitutional and set a precedent for tossing out our democratic republic values, something that's on the list of warning signs of fascism. Extremists, by their very nature, tend to go all out. They talk passionately to anyone who will listen, they get the signatures necessary, they run for office, they get elected. Unfortunately, extremist politicians don't care about representing their constituents. They have agendas instead. If the GOP gains control of the White House and Congress in 2024, Americans won't need to worry about representative voting in 10 years. I'm not a big fan at all of the liberal/conservative labels. I think the real factor here is corporate power, which has methodologies for dealing with whatever label we choose to put on something. Right now, there's no incentives for the uber-wealthy to do anything other than sit on tons of cash while making the most profit ever, and get ready to gobble when others fail. What exactly is it about identity politics and social issues that make you think liberal policies are bad for them? In a representative democracy, don't you think the government owes something to the citizens who drive the economy, make up its military, and obey the country's laws? What is so awful about defending social spending that it would drive you to vote for a fascist?

DienHuzen has been banned. Thank you for showing us your hate agenda so early on, you barely wasted any of our time at all.

! Moderator Note ... and you're real out of here!

You're still hung up on what expansion means. You say "outward", but what does that really mean when the entire universe is expanding? To move outward, you need to do that relative to something, but the universe isn't a ball floating in nothingness. It's all there is, it's everything. I think you're tricking your mind into thinking of it like a balloon that has an outer edge, expanding into some other space. It's easy to do, since there's nothing else in our experience quite like it.

Wait, are you describing religion? This is exactly the way I feel about the Abrahamic religions, that they've been a poison to our existence because they pretend to help when they mostly hurt.

I'm not sure why you think this. If I take a cubic meter of space that has no molecules of anything inside of it, you think it's outside reality? Just because a region of space has nothing in it, it still exists. And we can easily measure spacetime, and do it every day (meet me for lunch at noon tomorrow on the 1st level of the Eiffel Tower). They aren't physical objects, but they are real representations of the geometry of our universe (3 spatial dimensions, 1 temporal), so your definition lacks the degree of precision necessary to discuss this meaningfully. Thinking of space as "nothingness" isn't helpful, because it's NOT nothing (energy in any point in space still has a non-zero value). Even if a region of space has no matter in it, matter COULD pass through it, so it has to exist. The laws of physics still exist there.

This would make you extremely unethical. And fortunately, science has natural safeguards in place. People can check someone else's math, and experiments confirm when something works. It doesn't matter that you don't accept discoveries that show you past work to be wrong, because the science community will. Attacking the source rather than the science is a logical fallacy, and most scientists are trained to spot such.

I'm not interested in wading through the whole discipline to find the part you're talking about. It would be great if you could be specific. And the correlation to humans is what? What about them? What's the point you're trying to make here?

! Moderator Note Our rules require that I remove these photos. Explicit or not, we don't want a precedent set or we'd be flooded by more photos. We have a volunteer staff, and nobody needs the extra work removing spam. Don't do it again, please.

I think this is the way it is with most any subject. Before we learn, we make guesses using only what we know. Those guesses live in the gaps in our knowledge, and get forced out as we learn more and more about a subject.

How do we test for multiple universes? If we can't, is it really a theory? Besides parallel universes, does the Flash ever address the shockwave running that fast would create in front of him? If the air can't get out of his way fast enough, it's going to pile up and heat up and explode as he pushes through it.

You need to define "Reality". And if capital L Light is different from regular light, you need to define that as well. Light is a physical thing, and I've never heard a decent scientific definition of "reality". I don't think science tries to describe "reality", but rather it describes what we observe. Is that reality? How can we be certain? Why do so many disagree about what is "real"? "Reality", the way you talk about it, seems very subjective, and I try to remove as much subjectivity as possible when considering any explanation.

! Moderator Note Take the weekend off, take care of yourself, and if you come back to engage with this thread, do so with civility.

! Moderator Note Please keep your speculative concept out of other people's threads until you've established that you have supportive evidence for it. Especially don't use it to speculate on another person's speculation. We need mainstream science explanations here.

! Moderator Note This can't stay in Relativity, so I'm moving it to Speculations. Please provide supportive evidence for your idea, especially the parts that contradict observation.

Tektōn is the Greek word interpreted as "carpenter", but it can also mean "builder" or "laborer".

Has anyone mentioned the Ben Gurion Canal Project, that ends up just a little north of the Gaza Strip on the Med? They started about a year ago, and it will compete with the Suez Canal (which made Egypt almost US$8B last year). They'll be able to handle a LOT more ships with less waiting time, but only if they can guarantee the safety of those crossing.

You have a LOT of good ideas here, but you have a LOT of misinformation as well. Much of it has nothing to do with evolution. It's been pointed out that our sun will not become a supernova (too small). Do you have any evidence that humans originated in northern Africa? This article shows it's more likely we began in southern Africa. Also, all human skin plays a balancing game between vitamin D and folate, not just darker or lighter skin. Not sure where you're going to find evidence of your "hell below" concept, since there isn't any, and it's never good to mix the natural world with the supernatural. I agree that humanity needs more cooperation and less competition, and that more focus on long-term goals is needed, but I think there are so many of us that we can focus on more than just one thing. Also, be careful of TRUTH. It seems like an objective goal, but nothing is more subjective than what people think is TRUTH. It's a lie rather than any kind of truth, and you're better served looking for the best supported explanations for various phenomena.

It's not meaningful to talk about anything prior to a split second after the BB started. As I understand it, when we calculate backwards to that point using observable phenomena, it shows us that all matter, all the galaxies, coalesce into an extremely dense and extremely hot point. The whole universe then expanded suddenly until there was enough space that the matter could separate from itself and cool, leaving the universe fairly homogenous and isotropic. There's no way to tell how the matter was configured before that. Imagine if you built some fantastic, complicated structure out of steel, but then compressed it down until it was just a white-hot ball of metal, and you can see how you'll never know what it used to look like just by examining the ball. There is no "between the molecules" except for space. Enough heat and pressure can squeeze the space out, and even cause electrons and neutrons to degenerate. One temporal dimension (time), and three spatial dimensions (length, width, height) combined to make a stable configuration for our universe. As far as we know, spacetime started at the BB. You can guess what happened before, but it's just a guess and can't be falsified, so it's not science.

Isn't it ironic that belief in gods lets people judge each other, which isn't enlightened, doesn't show understanding, kindness, or truth, and is in fact ugly rather than beautiful?

I'm having trouble making sense of this. What are "the ages of time"? What is "the background in this world"? Are you familiar with the concept of spacetime, where the temporal dimension of time is inextricably linked to the three spatial dimensions we experience? Yet we see evolutionary changes happening and our explanations don't seem to need this substance you've made up. And we see plenty of fossils showing gradual changes in various species, so I think you've picked up some very bad information along the way somehow.

Especially if you have problems with lactose. The lack of milk solids also means it can be hotter than butter without burning, which makes it healthier.