SamBridge

You have virtually no proof of that. We have proof that rare phenomena can be mistaken for supernatural or extra terrestrial things, and 0 proof that extraterrestrial or supernatural things are mistaken as rare phenomena. But if you bet your house on a lottery ticket, you'd probably end up homeless. There's possibly infinite numbers of planets, the conditions i mentioned absolutely have meaning because we need to be rational and actually consider how likely it is not only that extraterrestrial life would form, but that it would be able to create technology and then find this planet and then somehow not contact anything on the planet or enslave it.

Yeah I've also noticed winters getting warmer in the northern hemisphere . Climatologists have been saying that for years, but they haven't said much about the Earth's axis.

I'm not getting it though. The title says global warming is a conspiracy or fake, yet the destabilizing of Earth's orbit would provide yet more evidence that the sun can heat it up more. Anyway, Earth's orbit has made gradual changes for the last 4-5 billion years, why would it all of a sudden become unstable? The rate that Earth's rotation slows down or destabilizes is so insignificantly small we won't have to change our calenders for it for at least 1000 years, and that's something that more than just climatologists looked at, studies like astronomy and even the business realm could be interested in that.

The point is that there are many natural phenomena that can be mistaken for things like UFOs and simply don't have enough scientific testing to detirmine with certainty what they really are because they are rare phenomena it isn't even often that I see a lenticular cloud in a region with no mountains, but it still happens sometimes, and even before you can get to that point you have to consider the likelihoods I mentioned, such as life forming elsewhere in the universe, then having a good enough environment to evolve to a highly intelligent point, then developing space travel technology, then out of all the planets in the universe they manage to find this specific one and mess with it rather than contacting the species on it or enslaving it.

I think thinking more about cause ->effect, not really personal human emotions to label personal extrapolations from events. If you kill someone, then that will likely have a negative effect on their family even if it was to protect someone else, in other words, regardless of the justification.

Time symmetry isn't an observed phenomena, and neither is time travel. Time dilation alone would not violate the principal. The principal can be modified as needed to fit new scientific results, however it is most certainly not wrong.

I don't think you can currently use "credible" and "UFO" in the same sentence unless you combine credible with the prefix "un". There are many natural phenomena that could have happened. For instance, there's the extremely rare "ball lightning". It occurs very rarely in nature, but after enough sightings and recognition in the 21st century we were able to confirm large glowing balls near storms were not spirits or UFO projectiles, they are natural phenomena. There's also many tricks light itself can play on concave and convex lenses. In my adventures of photography I have certainly seen not only isolated clouds that have a smooth UFO appearance that mimic a lentincular cloud over regions with no mountains, but have seen clouds with a very similar hue to the landscape that were also "disk-like". But upon driving closer I found they were merely clouds, though the white lenticular clouds were pretty easy to tell that they were clouds, especially since they dissipated as they traveled over a body of water. One should also consider not only the likelihood of life forming in the universe, but also after that, evolving to an intelligent form, then discovering space-travel technology, then finding this pale blue dot of a planet.

Can you please be more cohesive in the structure of your points? I really don't know what this is about or what you are saying all the time.

The necessity to perpetuate one's genes is an extrapolation that humans created. In reality itself, there is no recognition of perpetuation of genes, events simply happen which lead to genes getting carried on, so there is no logical reason to base actions off of it's global necessity. What exactly is it necessary for anyway? In nature evolution will act on it's own anyway. If you want to adopt a child go ahead, nature doesn't care, if their genes are really that self destructive they won't reproduce anyway, or they could be a genius like Isaac Newton. Either way, we're the only one's concerned with genes. If you could ask a fierce predator animal like a shark, it probably wouldn't care about genes or having kids, it would care about "doing it" when it wanted to.

How do the results confirm water is conscious? Even if there were predictable patterns, there's things called fractals. The slightest disturbances will alter how a crystal could potentially form because the pattern of ice crystals keep building off of each other repeatedly, so any alteration on a small scale will ultimately have a large effect on the crystals final structure. I can see this being used on either side. For one side, you could argue that you cannot reproduce the same type of crystal from putting in the same emotion, but you could argue that the changes are too small to measure and are convoluted by other outside factors. However, science is not based on guessing at what could be true, if there is no evidence that emotions effect crystals, such as by recreating crystal types, there is no way to confirm that it is true, and thus there is no particular reason to believe it is true. If emotions and consciousness truly effect water, there should be some predictable result, yet so far there are none. You can predict that if someone get's angry, their IQ drops and a certain chemical is found in their blood stream which is a repeatedly confirmed result regardless of the ultimate actions of a person being uncertain. Can we say anything similar about this with water when it is supposedly effected by an angry person?

What you personally define as good or bad has no effect on anything, what has an effect is the choices you actually make regardless of why you made them.

I'm not entirely understanding how higg's mass has anything to do with the big bang. Higg's particles seem to be important, but I don't see how they cause a big bang or why it wouldn't happen right now instead of billions of years from now.. 10s of billions of years from now seems like a pretty short time too, are higg's bosons gaining mass over time and eventually will gain enough mass to create a universe? Or...what? Also, I notice cosmologists have not discovered a boundary for the universe. Even if there is a big bang, it could be a purely local phenomena in an infinitely sized plane of existence. To me there does seem to be one solution though. NASA has claimed to begin developments for an actual "warp drive". So, if there was a way to do so, use the energy of the new big bang to create a warp bubble around w/e planet that will allow it to travel faster than light. As for getting resources, it would require very advanced technology thousands of years more advanced, the ability to transform the energy into resources that are usable by organic life on top of the whole warp drive thing.

You're right, currently neurologists don't have a good answer. There are different levels of memory, information is somehow stored in the form of chemical and electrical impulses, which when a certain thing happens may cause an impulse to be sent through the brain, and if the neurons are connected properly the impulse can reach where the memory is stored and cause a chemical release that triggers...and it get's pretty complicated and unknown. We know that first information in the form of electrical impulses must be "encoded" for the information to be recognized in a usable way by the brain for later accessing.

So let me get this straight: you originally thought the sun didn't cause warming effects?

If you just study particle physics more you will fine many physicists wanted some simple way to create a universal set of particles to describe all other particles and failed, so far there's no proof. The closest thing is string theory and it has no direct observable evidence.

In a way relativistic mass doesn't make sense, the number of atoms aren't changing, but energy still distorts the fabric of space, so if something has a greater relative energy it will cause a greater distortion in space according to that frame of reference. There's probably some simpler way to break it down in terms of time dilation and length dilation.

I'm going to say this again: hypothetically it was possible. Then, we created condensed matter and found no monopoles.

On top of all of the other points mentioned, that's not even accurate, we have no proof of that. "Creation tie" as you put it seems to be a logical loop hole if god actually existed. Relative to god it wished something to be true, but for the rest of the universe it still took time. Only problem is there's not much evidence for a being that can do that.

It was a multitude of factors. It wasn't from a meteor shockwave alone, the meteor combined with many volcanic eruptions created atmospheric conditions which made many ecosystems collapse and also lessened the amount of sunlight from dust in the air. Many plants died, so food chains collapsed, taking the dinosaurs with it. Some species were more adapted to survive cold, or live underground, or store food for longer periods of time, those animals survived.

Ultimately all beauty cannot be classified as stemming from a single cause which makes other possibilities likely, there are obviously different views of what is beautiful and what isn't. Some is from environment such as that you think something looks well because you are use to it and are not use to other images, some beauty is caused through sexual attraction, other beauty is caused though a pique of curiosity, or inspired from that which brings about emotions. I would guess many other animals can experience at least two of those. Certain bugs and mammals are certainly attracted to objects such as flowers for their colors, and not necessarily their smell.

It is certainly "possible" for aliens to have visited Earth, however there is little evidence for it, and any evidence that does exist is circumstantial and open to interpretation.

I must say I find it rather insulting people think I am incapable of measuring my own rate especially in repeated trials and getting the same results, and I would consider it trolling to suggest I cannot do so. If one can measure their heart rate, that is the only requirement necessary to confirm if your rate is fast or normal relative to the resting heart rate, nothing more, not that complicated. Your automatic association of the idea with vodoo or whatever religion when I myself was skeptical is irrational which I had to accept when I found it was possible to lower one's heart rate, however unlike you two I decided to try it myself, since no one else here has done that STILL, it is clear sys and possibly iNow are not in the thread to discuss science, but rather to attempt display hypothetical prowess which is in no way helpful to science. if you actually cared about investigating the situation, then like me and the other person who told me, one other person would have tried it. There are several pieces of proof which I can display if desired that show I am more than willing to compromise and "take criticism", so If I find out from a real doctor or biologist that what I'm saying is perfectly legitimate and I had little reason to doubt it, I'm doing some reporting. I'm guessing that you iNow would be the most "confused" or interested in as to how you were insulting me. Here's how it works: My accuracy = my ability to measure my heart rate. Therefore, if you say my accuracy is faulty, you are by the transitive property of logic saying that my ability to measure my heart rate is faulty, which I of course find insulting because even clinically retarded people can measure their heart rate to a degree of accuracy that can determine if it is high or low relative to their resting heart rate. It is really pretty easy to measure if your heart rate is high or low compared to your resting heart rate so your claim that I am not being accurate enough to me has little basis at all and is insulting.

If you actually cared about science rather than trolling in your own illusion of self prominence you would at least make any attempt to perform the experiment yourself. If you believe lowering your heart rate within the limitations I described then you must believe all of biology is pseudo science because it says you can willfully hold your breath. As I said, I know what I measured, I have 100% confidence I measured the heart rate slowing down at will, the only mystery is the limitations which based on trials seem to conclude that it is the resting heart rate. I also found it inconclusive that it works the other way around to raise one's heart rate.

With quantum physics, its "possible" in condensed matter physics, but we have created condensed matter on Earth and have not seen any monopoles. Condensed matter physics is also somewhat of a mystery as certain physical laws break down or don't accurately describe particle systems at that level, which is why as it says in the article, its one of the most active fields studied in physics, it helps tell us not only about neutron stars, but possibly about black holes and about the early dense universe.

No it's not that you are going to fast it's that you are moving without much grace. Magnetic monopoles are not possible in conventional physics and at best have no conclusive evidence, they are really only possible in string theory, which as you can't accept is rather lacking in much evidence.