MigL

You suggested I was an adherent of scientism, not science, and I simply offered my reasons for being one. I did not imply you were an adherent of religion, so I have no reason to 'be careful'.

Absolutely, scientism AND science, not rather than. And being a scientist, I base that on the observation that Science has worked out a lot better for humanity than Religion.

That's all right, Zap. I'm usually a griping old man myself. But what, exactly, is wrong with cute cats ???

No, invoking the 'supernatural' relinquishes all hope of ever understanding. But, we may someday understand how, or why, the universe has always been there. A valid quantum Gravity theory will get us much closer to knowing what happened in the first instants of time. And I really don't expect the equations to plot out the face of God.

Information cannot be created or destroyed; where did the rest of the universe's information come from ? So, not science either. Actually a thread hijack ... And nonsense unless you back it with evidence.

A 'supernatural' solution guarantees we will never have answers to these questions. The 'always been there' solution holds out hope that, eventually, we might. The latter option seems scientific to me, the former, not so much.

You guys sound like old men griping about how things are changing; and how you don't like it because that's not the way you did things back in the day. Fact is, kids, if they have an interest in a subject, have access to way more information on that subject than we ever did. And the same kids who delve deep into an internet subject today, would have done the same, with books, 40-50 years ago. The ones who didn't then, don't do so now either.

Well, a much simpler explanation than invoking the 'supernatural' ( as you have posited ) might be to suppose that it has always existed, albeit in different forms. No one suggests the universe sprang from a point source ( singularity ), but from a hot dense state. This state was present before the manifestation of geometry ( the 'field' of GR ) and, as such, the concepts of space and time simply do not apply. That 'indeterminate' state could have 'always' existed; why suppose that it was brought into being by 'supernatural' forces/events ?

Spent whole days in local libraries, from the public one, the high school one, Brock U library ( where I attended ) and the much larger McMaster U library in nearby Hamilton. The best time was March, when the yearly release of Janes: All the Worlds Aircraft came out. I would spend the whole weekend in the library, because, even in the 80s, that book went for about $800.

I'm just waiting for Holmes to provide an example of ALL these paradoxes that apparently cannot be explained by science. And why he thinks saying "The ghost of Alexander Keith did it" ( alegedly haunts his brewery in Nova Scotia ), resolves these paradoxes. And, IF he should be able to provide such a paradox ( doubt it ), how is his explanation any different than not having an explanation at all.

Space-time is a co-ordinate system. I would say that is something. I'm sorry you missed 'WKRP in Cincinnati', Joigus.

There is a whole range of growth rates between linear and exponential. As well as growth rates such as hyperbolic, which are faster than exponential. If anything goes to infinity, that is an indication that your thinking/equations have exceeded their bounds of applicability.

If you take the 'lack of something' away, what are you left with ? That's right ... nothing. So how can the two be equivaent ?

Interesting premise ... Using a subjective interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, in a subjective thought experiment, to prove, or disprove, a figment of subjective beliefs. Yeah, that's gonna work.

No, that doesn't happen. The only reason BHs seem to have extreme gravity is because you can get much closer to the mass than you otherwise could to a non collapsed star. edit: cross posted with Swansont

It's right in its name ... The word 'nothing' doesn't describe what can be called a 'thing'. Hence , the word 'nothing' doesn't describe any 'thing'. Tossing out dictionary definitions simply prove subtleties are lost on you.

"Nothing" is a made up word that doesn't describe anything.

Don't want to be a stickler about this but the F-35b has a greater radius of action than the plane it replaces with the US Marine Corps, the McD-D/BAE AV-8B Harrier II. So even in VTO it is 'useable'. It has internal weapon bays ( otherwise it would not be very stealthy, would it ) for carrying missiles or JDAMs ( GPS guided bombs ) and the thrust available from its engine is enough for VTO in this configuration. It was expressly built with this capability in mind as this video of the x-35 from the early 2000s shows Another capability the Marines wanted was the ability to fly backwards, as they had practiced such maneuvers from the hover with the AV-8Bs. Since the 'lobster tail' rear nozzle can be rotated past 90o, and the front vertical nozzle has adjustable vanes, other users of the F-35B, like the Brits, have even practiced backward landings on the HMS Qeen Elizabeth. See this article F-35B lands backwards on HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier | Aerospace Testing International The fact that these capabilities are not often used in practice sorties doesn't mean they cannot be performed in an emergency, or conflict, situation. ( sorry if I sound like a military hardware fan boy )

When an eye doctor looks at your retina, he is looking through several different layers. The cornea is usually transparent, but it can have scarring or uneven curvature, making for a fuzzy view. The aqueous humor is a liquid that fills the front part of the eye, most always clear, but hi-pressure of this fluid ( due to poor drainage ) is the cause of glaucoma and loss of optic nerve function. The lens is next, and both the lens and its capsule can become cloudy. The capsule can be cleared with a YAG laser ( see Yag laser capsulotomy ), but once the lens becomes obscured, a condition known as cataracts, it is removed and replaced by an artificial lens ( one of the most common eye operations ). Between the back of the lens capsule and the retina is the gelatinous humor, which can sometimes be occluded by traces of blood due to trauma of the eyes. Most people have experienced these 'floaters', but sometimes excessive trauma to the blood vessels feeding the retina can dramatically increase their numbers. All of these conditions introduce screening that prevents the doctor from getting a clear view of the retina at the back of the eye. ( yes, I have glaucoma, had cataracts removed, and YAG laser capsulotomy )

That is the difference between operational capabilities and operational utilization. The F-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JASF competition because the ( then ) X-35 could take off vertically, while the x-32 could not.

Usually acceptable, but not as good as seeing it with your own eyes ...

F-35B can do vertical take-off and landing ( VTOL ), but with much reduced payload and range. A rolling take-off is used to increase load-out. They would not be used on battleships for lack of below deck storage, and proper vertical take-off area ( engine exhaust can buckle steel decks ).

And a B-1 can be taken down by a bird strike ( into an engine compressor ). Yet the US still built the B-2. And is tendering out engine replacement for B-52s, to keep them active till 2050, and beyond. A century after they were first built.

My apologies. I may have quoted a quote.