Phi for All

But in context, we were referring to experts and, you know, people smarter than you "few people".

Right, the Big TV Debate is a bad idea, so we give up. The point is, there is no debate. It's like the Intelligent Design vs public school science "debate". There is none. It's been manufactured by spin doctors and stabbed into the American psyche that there's any questions about it at all. A responsible, informative media would simply point to the mountains of evidence vs the opinions of profiteers and conclude that There. Is. No. Debate. Agreeing to one is a yuge admission that this is open to question.

Seriously? *sigh* Which people?

This is a completely horrible idea. If this were done correctly, the "debate" would take less time than a commercial segment. Instead, the media would first make it seem like an even battle (which is a hideous thought), and they'd give equal time to both sides in the interest of "fairness", ignoring the fact that Trump's side represents less than 1% of the expert views. From there, with the new Facts are for Wimps attitude, it would only get worse for our chances that sanity might shine through.

! Moderator Note You remain ignorant of the topic. Search a good physics course locally. Or look for reputable, mainstream course sites. The people you've been listening to haven't studied physics either. All of physics uses measuring processes we've devised. Just because they're made up by humans and don't matter to the universe doesn't mean they aren't EXTREMELY USEFUL to humans. You're stuck on this meaningless distinction about one dimension and are letting it keep you from moving forward with your education. Everyone hopes to help you see this. You make it very hard. You aren't the first person to make a mistake in science. But you can't just keep claiming time isn't real. We understand why you're saying it, and we're trying to tell you you're being blinded by your perspective. Trying to talk it out this way isn't working. Sorry, but we need some cooperation in a discussion. Thread closed.

This implies that someone else is involved that we don't know about. Again, clarity is your friend here. Who is not allowing, and who is tracking this history?

Is this some kind of sexual ethics, or are you asking if exaggerating a products benefits in order to sell it is ethical? Or are you asking about lying? The less vague you are, the better the quality of your responses will be. Trust me on this.

! Moderator Note You need to do more than comment. When you make assertions here, you need to back them up. Nobody is interested in your opinion in science. It's worthless without supportive evidence. Do you understand? If you have questions, ask them. It's clear you're going against mainstream physics because you are at an impasse in your understanding. Insisting you're right by waving your hands doesn't help anyone, and it's very boring in discussion. You need evidence for your claims. Please provide SOMETHING.

Definitive debates aren't what Big TV is all about these days. Easier to focus on Trump's flash-in-the-pan attention-grabbers, and that's what keeps people clicking and viewing. Climate science is hard, and hey! It's that guy from The Apprentice. He knows everything!

And as usual, the US ends up paying far more than anyone else in the world for the same or lesser quality of service. It doesn't seem to matter whether it's roads, healthcare, or politics. In four years, when Trump is worth $20B, we'll really understand why he didn't want us to know what he's worth.

! Moderator Note You haven't supported your speculative concept well. You keep repeating things like the above without explanation. Since this discussion is circling, I give you the chance to explain why you accept the "laws of physics" but not the dimensional parameters of those laws. Please support the above statement with evidence, or at least an explanation that's more than waving your hands a little harder. Otherwise we're going to have to lock this thread per Speculation rules.

Same response for grapefruit and breasts.

I think ethically every woman should want to allow a man to have more than just that initial input. I think women should think hard about allowing a man to help with the decision if he is willing and committed, even if it is a decision to abort. And I think women are better off with a committed partner in raising children. But I think ultimately it should be their choice because it's their body. And men have so many more options than women do, so it's not like it's ever going to be an equal decision.

That would make it a little harder, I suppose.

I think you may have found a humor singularity, because the jokes this creates approach infinity. Viagra is made from redwood trees, right?

So it would be more accurate to say that time allows motion to happen as you describe above, but doesn't cause motion as stupidnewton suggests, wouldn't it?

I'm very, very sorry you see it this way. I'm not really in a position where being PC is of any relevance to me. I have nothing to prove. I'm rather now in a phase of questioning the foundations of why we do certain ruinous things, like try to interfere between a person and their own body. I'm not really calling for a major change here; it's a matter of life and death, and in the end, if I want to be free to choose my own death and whether it's to have meaning or not, it's going to be my decision, influenced by those I love, but mine solely. I simply think a woman should have that right as well. I'm not the one who might die during pregnancy.

In my experience, this might sound good but it always ends poorly. There is no universal truth for all people, except that we need to breathe, we need to eat, we need water, and we need shelter. "True reality" is a commodity controlled by the opinions of a few. "True reality" that "imposes rules that we should follow" is just more religion. I don't think a united, peaceful world also has to be homogenous and singularly purposed. I think it's in our best interest to take advantage of the diversity of perspective various cultures offer. Maybe all we need to make universal is the food, shelter, water, and breathable air. Without those worries, everyone will have time for school!

That's introducing some major non-evidenced forces at work to explain something we can much more easily attribute to the huge diversity of plant life on Earth and our insane pattern-recognition skills. We can't help comparing things to each other, it's a large part of how we assemble data to form information. You'd need some evidence for these super-intelligent beings. Is it assumed they're smart enough to avoid our observation? That makes them equivalent to god(s), so no evidence possible there. A motive might help you piece together a valid argument. What does making these plants look like familiar things accomplish? Does it make us spare the plants so they can thrive? If so, then evolution is a much simpler explanation than super intelligent aliens. Does it make us eat the plants, or use them more specifically? That might be a path that could yield some supportive evidence. But I hope you'll see that the observations you've made support your concept, but don't confirm it. They aren't a confirmation of anything.

I keep thinking about being a free person. And this is the conclusion I keep coming back to. The choice is the woman's to make. I know it sounds equitable for men and women to share in decisions regarding childbirth, but in the end, the man's part in the biological process is negligible compared to the woman's. After insemination, she's entirely capable of bringing the child into the world by herself. And she's the one taking all the major risks. The way to make this fair and equitable is to give women this power that's rightfully theirs. It's their body that will play host, that will pay the costs in terms of health, that will risk death to bring life. If they want help, if they want to include the father in the decision-making process, that should be viewed as the honor and privilege it really is. Men who would be fathers should strive to be the type of man a woman would gladly include in such life and death decisions.

! Moderator Note I've hidden a post with another speculative addition. Please don't hijack someone else's thread with speculative guesswork, even if it's a speculative thread.

! Moderator Note Theoretical Physics isn't the place for your hypothesis. If you have a question about mainstream theory, post it here. For your own ideas, please support them in Speculations. This isn't supported well enough for Speculations, btw. You need some evidence.

I'm never using the kind of math where dimensions outside normal spacetime become relevant, so when someone talks about how many Ds a perspective has, I always assume they're talking about spatial, plus one temporal. This might not be best practice.

If you're using the tesseract as a 4D example, then the fourth axis is a spatial one. Time is the temporal dimension.

Time is a temporal dimension, the other three are spatial. Using the four together, we have a system for plotting events in our universe. Given x, y, z, and t coordinates, we can predict a meeting between you and I on a certain floor of a certain building in a certain city on a certain planet, etc. If we follow the same rules for a fourth spatial dimension, starting with a 3D cube you move 90 degrees away from every point on the cube. Not sure how useful that is.