Phi for All

Do we know yet exactly what this room is for? Why the need for blocking UV light, since it's not for a darkroom?

That's the beauty of solid-state. You can make LEDs that have custom properties for the purpose they fulfill. I saw an LED array in IR for a CCTV camera, 48 LEDs arranged in a circle around the lens, for $3. Most bulbs and fixtures for the home and office aren't going to emit much UV, that's one of their selling points.

Incandescent bulbs do emit some UV, but not as much as compact fluorescent bulbs. Stay away from those if you can. LEDs are probably your best bet, although long tube fluorescents are coated well enough usually to reduce UV to a minimum. I'd still go LED, since your options are broader. If you use an LED fixture that isn't trying to emulate an Edison-base bulb, you'll probably get a more efficient light with almost no UV at all.

What was the effect of having a bigger-than-normal amygdala? Were there any other manifestations in your daily life, besides the agoraphobia and the bi-polar disorder?

It was already forced to leave it's last home, and now it's working retail clothing part-time. God of the Gap, as it were.

Then accept the default position, which is that, until we see evidence in support of god(s), we assume they don't exist (like unicorns, and Santa). And we're always ready to change our minds when that evidence becomes available. You can't get more objective than that. So far, we've been able to explain everything we know about without needing anything supernatural.

You're wrong about this, and I hope you're sorry as well. I've always found smart people can usually accept being corrected when it's appropriate, and valid, and obviously improves on their own information. I don't know how smart I am, but I've grown capable of acknowledging when someone can improve my own knowledge. Unless you're talking about people who only think they're smart. Folks like that can't ever be wrong.

All prisons have huge underground military bases underneath them, to deal with alien threats. That's why they don't like it when prisoners dig tunnels.

Because the mechanism we understand is actually easier to support than "divine commanding forces". Can you explain gravity to the degree science does, with the preponderance of supportive evidence, using only divine forces? You can't, not without waving either your hands or a magic wand. You can breed fruit flies and set up evolution experiments since they have such short generations, so it's very easy to see evolution with your own eyes. Or you can look at your dog or cat, and see how they've evolved from their own ancestors. Also, if you "believe" in the ToE and physics, why are you arguing against them "for the sake of the argument"? IOW, why put forth these easily refutable arguments if you already accept (much better concept than "believe") them as our best current explanations?

Science assumes nothing about god(s). In fact, science assumes there is nothing supernatural, since we have no evidence to support the idea. God(s) is not a subject science can address until some observational evidence comes to light. Which it never has.

Is this going to be one of those threads? The kind where we spend all our time providing supportive evidence for a mainstream theory, while all you do is post smug non-answers like this one, that tell us NOTHING? Here we attack ideas, not people. If all you're going to do is criticize the people participating in your thread, why are we bothering?

You should try to show this, using evidence, rather than trying to wave it into validity with your hands. The preponderance so far is with the theory (not hypothesis) of evolution, one of the most heavily studied and researched theories science has ever developed. Evolution itself is a fact; the theory is our best explanation.

The technology might be reliable, but the questions asked are often misleading. If you work in a computer store, and I'm giving you a lie detector test (and my boss told me to find someone who's lying, no matter what), I can ask you, "Have you ever taken money from the cash register that didn't belong to you?" If you say no, it's going to show you're lying. I can get you fired right there. Because of course you've taken money from the register, it's part of your job. None of it belongs to you, but you give change to people on most cash transactions. You understood that I meant "steal", but I said "take". I could ask "Have you ever taken merchandise off the shelf that didn't belong to you?" Again, it's part of your job, and your brain knows that, but if I ask it this way, and you say no, it will show as a lie.

I didn't see it earlier. Has anyone explained that the singularity associated with the BBT isn't a black hole? We've seen this misunderstanding a lot.

These politicians have a lot of PTPB (People To Pay Back), and a lot of those people don't want environmental regulations at all. I don't think it's a case where these politicians aren't listening to the expert consensus, it's that the other voices are louder, or at least more profitable. Without those lobbying voices in their ears, I think they'd side with the professional experts that are trained to be aware of such things. I keep thinking about what the Clintons have done to earn money since Bill left office. They were supposedly broke and in heavy debt in 2001, yet now they're worth millions. And from what I've read, the wealth came from speaking engagements to some of the very groups that would lose profit if tighter carbon regulations were in effect, if they were made to stop polluting our environment.

! Moderator Note There's nothing in the OP about religion, so let's stick with mainstream science for this speculation, and leave religion to its own section.

In that time, you've learned what it takes. When you turn pro, you become more of a "lady" man, focusing your efforts on the greatest lady in the world.

For me, wisdom is an emergent property of intuition, or rather fighting against it. If there's a fire in the forest, it might be wise to fight your intuition about putting it out, for the good of the whole forest. Wisdom tells us to offer to cut a baby in half and give the parts to the two women claiming to be the mother. As long as they aren't doing too much harm, it's good to ignore your intuition about breaking up a fight between two people, since it harms their chances of working things out themselves.

Maybe wisdom isn't imparted, it's absorbed. Imagine an infinite sponge, capable of soaking up the knowledge of every experience in the universe....

I'm trying to wrap my head around the general response to a couple who can't die, who get to live forever while the rest of humanity gets less than a hundred years. How many people would support our right to privacy, and how many would demand we be tested to find out our secret?

That means part of my life will be spent hiding the immortality of my wife and I.

Oh, it's just me and one other, not everyone?

Nothing can harm us?

Define "live". Not down to the trivial, but it would be important to know something about your immortality process. Do we continue to age at some slower rate, or is it assumed you'll be an average, healthy person (at what age physiologically?) who can't die? Or is this more of a "as long as you don't have a fatal accident, you'll never die, at least of natural causes" sort of affair? I kind of favor the idea of not dying of natural causes, but still being mortal when it comes to decapitation or being blown up. This might negate the intention of the implied immortality of "forever". Is forever important in this scenario, or is a thousand years enough? As for living a whole lot longer, sure, sign me up. If I don't have to worry about my mental and physical capabilities being impaired, and could spend my scads of time accumulating compound interest, and using that to explore the world, meet new people, discover new discoveries, experience the development of our species and others over longer periods of time, and generally push the limits of how much a person can know, I can't think of a more delightful future.

I think this is the real reason Paul Ryan doesn't want to come charging to the rescue. He knows the Republicans have no chance this year. Why waste the effort, and get ground up by Trump's propaganda machine, just to lose in the end anyway?