MigL

Ancient peoples had a 'map' which told them the Earth was flat, and as far as they could tell, it was; that was their reality. We have a map which predicts the way to the Eiffel Tower, yet we know it omits some locations along the way ( or predicts some locations to be at infinity ), yet we get to the Eiffel Tower so it is true. Tomorrow we have another map, one which shows hidden locations and gives proper distances ( not infinities ) and still gets us to the Eiffel Tower. Is this second map 'truer' ? ( loose analogy of maps to scientific theories ) Science is never 'true'. It evolves, and can only ever be falsified in its description of reality, and reality, as Seth states, is very hard to nail down. Is our 'true' map good enough when it can't tell us the state of a cat in a box? Or more precisely, if anything is real before we make a measurement ? My definition of 'true' is absolute, and I know there is no such thing. Your definition seems to include "good enough, for now', implying that 'true' could change over time as knowledge expands. @Moontanman I do agree with you about 'holy' books, but why should 'true' apply to them when it doesn't apply to so many other things ? They are mostly allegorical writings meant to convey the morals of the times they were written in. Taking them as 'Divine Scripture', historical documents, or a guide for today's moral behaviour is foolish as only some parts are currently applicable ( just like todays 'maps' or scientific theories ), and no one has suggested taking them literally ( not even Dim ). As this discussion seems to have turned left at Albuquerque on the way to 'thoughts on Islam' maybe one of the mods would be so kind as to split it off at the appropriate point, and move this section to Philosophy.

That may be what you believe, I, however, do not. five thousand years ago, it was true that the Earth was flat, and that matched their reality as close as they could measure. Today our truth matches a different reality. To me, it makes no sense to define one subjective concept, truth, using another subjective concept, reality, because then I will ask you to define reality. And I don't think you can do that. ( I know I can't ) @Moontanman I assure you my stubbornness was not meant to offend you in any way, but I, just like you and others, am wedded to my beliefs. It seems, these days, we are all more agreeable to changing our minds about facts, than we are about beliefs.

Usually done by citing someone else's 'truth' which closely matches our own. It was 'true' that the Earth was flat until 2500 years ago in ancient Greece ( or was it Alexandria, Egypt ? ). So 'truth', can change, so it is not absolute; even in science nothing is proven tru, only falsifiable.

As long as it's not a 'flip' phone, you should be OK for your stated purposes. But phones are like computers ( sorry, are ); once you 'discover' the extra features, you eventually find a use for them.

Somebody doesn't like it but it's starting to sound like ULTRON to me 😁 .

That is not what I said. My truth is important to me ( and to Dim ) just as much as yours is important to you. That's the whole point, 'truth', as well as 'reality' and belief' are subjective, and ther are 8 Billion different ones on this world alone.

There's a reason we use different words for 'beliefs' and 'facts'. Only one of the two is evidence based. It is my belief that 'beliefs', 'realities' and 'truths' are subjective, and not factual. I'll leave it to you to decide if that requires evidence.

The low concentration fumigant would work if the YJ were contained in, say, a grain silo. Higher concentration Phosphene would result in a blowtorch.

This discussion has gotten pointless. Moon's objection to Dim's argument is that Religion tells Dim what to believe. He thinks that's wrong, so he's telling Dim what to believe. Both are forgetting that this is a belief, not a fact. And now someone is trying to force that belief under punishment of red demerit points ( way worse than burning in hell 😄 ). The argument that something is 'real' is also ineffective. If reality is what we perceive, signals subjectively interpreted by our brains, then someone tripping on acid sees a different reality than I do. I'm told it's pedantic, and sharing a reality is what makes it 'real'; would a group of color blind people who don't see the color red assume there is no color red ? Or for that matter, why is shared reality period dependent; in earlier times, no one could detect IR or UV radiation, so it didn't exist ???? As for Phi believing in humans, not Gods ... Donald Trump has a few stories to tell you; all his followers believe in him !

What ???

It is. And at very low concentrations ( less than 10 ppm ) tends to smell of garlic and makes me hungry. ( seriously, limits are 0.3 ppm; at higher concentrations you lose the ability smell it )

Less than 2% by weight. Mixed with either CO2 or N2.

What is real Moon ? If I'm moving relative to you, I measure a different reality than you do. Which one of us is at rest ? Which one moving ? Who measures the real 'reality' ? I do an experiment and measure a 'particle'. You do one and measure a 'wave'. What is the 'reality' ? For that matter, what is reality before wave function collapse ?

We convert yellow/white Phosphorous to red, and sparge it with steam in a highly acidic/ hi-temperature environment to produce Phosphine gas ( Hooker Chemical patent from the 60s ), inerts and other impurities removed to about 95 % purity, then compressed. It is further distilled to hi-purity ( 99.99996 % or better ) semi-conductor grade, for doping, mixed for use as a fumigant, or reacted with different olefins to make organo-phosphorous derivatives for mining chemicals ( extraction ), biocides, and even medications.

This forum, and a couple of others, are the only social media I participate in. Mostly because there are always opposing views presented, and discussed ( if not, I do my best to provide them 😄 ). No Facebook, Instagram, X, etc. The saying used to be "Think for yourself, before someone else does it for you" It has now been amended to "Think for yourself, before the algorithm does it for you" Incidentally, most sites keep track of your 'preferences' through cookies. After a couple of searches, YouTube's algorithm will 'target' you with related subjects. Even the freakin' weather channel does that. Clean out your cookies on a regular basis ( I use Ccleaner ), and you won't have that problem.

I would not fly in an American helicopter for which Iran hasn't been able to get parts since 1980. Add in the unpredictable fog, and all the Israelis had to do was sit back and watch.

Not much chance of an assassination. A mountainous area where fog can spring up very quickly, and flying in a Bell 212 helicopter, which is, at best, 1970s vintage, is a recipe for disaster. How it gets spun by the religious leaders to their people, is a different story.

Not only the dose; many other factors are involved. My brother eats better than I do, works out with weights like a madman, and walks two hours per day.; I eat most anything I want, use sugar, and really need to get back to the gym as I'm gaining weight. He is one year older than me, but he has diabetes ( under excellent control ), and I don't. I gave an example of risk analysis to Dimreepr and MSC in the thread regarding the use of atomic weapons on Japan, in WW2. The probability of an incident, and the severity of the incident, must both be considered; some, in this thread are only considering one or the other. I work in a Chemical plant which, on a regular basis, has up to 70 000 lbs of 95 - 99.99996 % Phosphine, liquified at 700 psi. You can look up the MSDS for yourself as to its dangers. Yet, I worry more about the 15 min drive to work, and back home.

My previous post was meant to be humorous. But on a serious note, embarrassment definitely has 'context'. At different times of my life, I have been embarrassed by different things ( lately sight and age related ). It also depends on the presence of an 'audience', , the size, age and gender of that audience. And some of these factors affect people differently or not at all. As an example, in the line above, I originally wrote "been enbarrassed by", and the editor flagged it as misspelled. I checked the two Rs and the two Ss, I even googled the word, until I finally realized I had typed N instead of M ( eyesight issue ). And even though it was just me and my cat, I still felt a twinge of embarrassment at my foolishness.

Soooo ... You don't feel embarrassed, or awkward, at all, if your fly is undone, and your junk is hanging out, in a social situation ? Pretty 'ballsy' !

Cryptic as always, even on such a somber day. My deepest condolences, Dim.

So is trying to teach you the correct application of Physics and Astronomy. Because it seems all of these guys efforts are wasted on you.

Another Canadian to pipe-up in Dim's defense. Up until the 1800s wars and battles, at least for the 'noble' class, involved a certain amount of pageantry, showmanship and 'gallantry, with colourful uniforms and flag bearers. The 1800s saw a change in this; war was no longer glamorous, as new weapons and old tactics fed the common foot soldier into the shredder that saw tens of thousands killed in single battles. The need for the Red Cross was inspired by the carnage and bloodshed at the battles of Solferino and Magenta in the Italian wars of unification in the late 1850s. The American Civil War was no different ; bloody carnage and destruction that pitted brothers against each other in pointless battles of little strategic significance ( watch Sergio Leone's 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly', starring me, of course, for a good depiction ). By the time of WW1, the bloody carnage of hundreds of thousand of soldiers, in pointless battles, had been implemented on an industrial scale.

At 10-43 sec. or Planck scale, geometry ceases to have meaning. Since time is part of the geometry of space-time, it also ceases to have meaning. People should stop asking "What happened before 10-43 sec." There was no 'before' as we know it. The compact hot dense universe of that 'time' could have existed forever or for an instant; there would have been no difference.

To elaborate ... The Big Bang was everywhere.