Strange

Yes. No. The reason that CERN are able to produce anti-matter and measure its properties is because it can be controlled. And the properties they measure show it to behave exactly like ordinary matter (not "outside the boundaries of natural forces"). You didn't phrase it as a question: you made two confident (and incorrect) assertions. Maybe you should stick to asking questions for a while.

I am not too surprised. In fact, the Wikipedia page referenced by OldChemE goes on to say something similar.

! Moderator Note I think this is a science forum, not a place for you to post whatever random nonsense that occurs to you.

I don’t see why we can’t stay here. Even if some people do go off and explore / colonise space, most people will stay here. But apparently it might not be so difficult for civilisations to spread through the galaxy: https://www.quantamagazine.org/galaxy-simulations-offer-a-new-solution-to-the-fermi-paradox-20190307/

It says that people with high EQ can recognise emotions. It says nothing about controlling them. That appears to be your invention.

But those extra digits become increasingly insignificant. So you will never need the value of pi to more than a dozen of so digits. And it is easy to imagine a number slightly larger than 3. So this doesn't;t really have anything to do with infinity.

That doesn't make any sense. You can't "dry" acidity. It may have been prescribe to prevent acid reflux, where acid comes up the oesophagus from the stomach. That is, I believe, a fairly common cause of sore throats (and coughing and various other symptoms). If there was inflammation/irritation of the throat, this could have extended to the nasal passages and affected the sense of smell. (But without knowing more, it is all guess work. If you really want to know, you would need to ask the doctor who treated you.) Very unlikely.

No you didn't. You just waved your hands, ignored the realities of physics and pretended it didn't matter. Now, if you could do some actual calculations and show that a particular set of values of fundamental constants could change but cause no perceptible effect, then that would be an answer. A non-scientific one, but an answer. Saying "why should it matter" is (a) not an answer and (b) a demonstration of your ignorance. Nope. Because if the changes you claim happen in a magic way that means the change is undetectable, then it cannot be detected and it is not science. Not now, not in the future. It is just a fairly tale you have invented (presumably because making up random stuff is easier than actually learning some science). Nope. Making up fairy tales as "evidence" for other fairy tales is not how science works. So it comes back to your magic that makes your theory untestable. And, no, it isn't interesting. It is a little bit sad, to be honest.

It is your notation, so I suppose only you can answer that. I assume t represents the time the event occurred (ie the position on the t axis corresponding to the time of the event in the same way that x,y,z represent the spatial location). In other words, the coordinates of the event are x,y,z,t. S is a frame of reference and doesn’t know anything. We know it has occurred and assign the x,y,z,t coordinates to it.

Citation needed Perhaps because it has no scientific basis

There are all sorts of problems with this. Even ignoring the fact it is something you have made up, with no evidence or theoretical basis, just to get around the fact that existing evidence proves you wrong. But even if it were true, what about the fact that Mars probes (and those to other planets, moons, comets and deep space) continue to function correctly on the journey, when they first arrive and after becoming magically transformed to the “local physics”. The sensitive electronics would not work if fundamental constants were constantly changing. Your claim that “everything is different but carefully contrived to appear the same” is logically equivalent to solipsism or Last-Thursdayism (the idea that the universe was created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old). In other words it cannot be proved or disproved and therefore is not science. It is barely even pseudoscience. Your argument “but the equations work” is equally meaningless. It is trivial to invent arbitrary equations to fit any result you want. Science is not the process of inventing fairy tales about the universe just because you like the story. You need to learn how science works before/instead of making up nonsense like this. Numerology includes arbitrary curve fitting as well as playing around with numbers

This is always true within a single frame of reference (whether you consider it stationary or not). That is almost the definition of a frame of reference. I’m not sure what you mean by “mean” The coordinate system of the frame of reference is x,y,z,t (you haven’t drawn the t axis). These are fixed and independent axes which can be used to define the location of an event in space time. We can transform between these and the coordinates of another frame S’ (x’,y’,z’,t’). If you draw the x and t axes, you can see that this transformation is actually a rotation. It is just a function that maps from one coordinate system to another. They predate SR. SR explains how they work based on the invariant speed of light.

It is not your conclusion that I have a problem with, it is your refusal to discuss the explanations of your errors.

I guess everyone's experience is different. For me, it is reading about science that has always been most exciting. TV programs and videos nearly always leave me underwhelmed. They can be entertaining, but they are usually shallow. I expect younger people today are more focussed on videos as a learning medium. (And, naturally, I think this is disastrous!) (Missed this post, before.) I don't think anyone is stomping on you, I'm certainly not. But as you say, the issue isn't being ignored. Lots of the really good science communicators out there produce videos. I have even recommended some of them! But that doesn't mean this forum is the right place for them (except as supporting material). Maybe a thread for recommended science communicators and their media (YT, Twitter, etc.) would achieve what you want?

Well, it might a start. But neither education nor different perspectives on history count as brainwashing, in my opinion. (I think every country I have lived in has claimed to have invented manned flight or television.) But this really comes back to iNow's question: what does the OP mean by "brainwashing"?

I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brainwashed. I am not brian

Do they though? Do you have any evidence that this is done?

I don't get a could most months. In fact, I would not be too surprised to go 12 or more months without a cold. Given the vast amount of cold research that has been done, I think we can confidently answer this. No.

I think Phi for All has mentioned most of my problems with videos. There are a couple of other problems, that I have. One is that listening to a video is not always easy. Sometimes, I am able to find a pair of headphones and listen but not always. And it is rare that a video is worth the effort. There are subtitles on that video but because they seem to automatically generated with no punctuation or sentence breaks and broken into short lines they are really hard to read. Also (and this is probably the biggest): pacing. That video is nearly 7 minutes long. I could read the content in less than a minute? There is one useful image (the comparison of filter shapes) the rest is all just random background images. The two papers are mentioned but, because it is a video, there are no links to them. And I can't copy and paste the titles to search for them. I have to freeze the video, retype the title and search for it. So why make it a video? What does video add? It only seems to have negatives. I just can't see any advantages. There are occasions where someone uses a large number of diagrams and animations, or does demonstrations, that a video can add something. (I have posted occasional videos, myself.) But that is incredibly rare. It just seems to me to be the second worst format for delivering information. Especially in a place that is text and image based (the best media for delivering information).

How about we plan to send some space probes there to investigate. Maybe we could even land robotic vehicles to do some science there. It's a mad idea, but it might just work.

And philosophers will help refine that by asking "what do mean by sentient/sapient", "what practical difference will it make", "what outcome do you want to achieve", "are you concerned about the AI or humans", "how do you weigh up the benefits and costs" and so on ... (economists are useful too!)

And you are still refusing to engage. Why do you ignore the answers and explanations you have been given? Do you expect people to just uncritically accept what you say, even when you are wrong?

Reality (and the definition of what "reality" means) may be one subject of philosophical enquiry, but certainly not the only one. On the other hand, many philosophers of science would say that science cannot tell us anything about "reality", only about the things we can observe and measure. And who decides what we "should" think and what is "practical"? Not sure if this was a deliberate straw man argument or a genuine mistake. Read the statement you are responding to again. It is about how philosophy can tell us about "the ways we should think to come to valid or practical results" But your reply is about what we should think (and about who decides) which is irrelevant to the statement. These are completely different things. As a philosopher, you will appreciate that precision is important. I disagree. I think that finding the right questions to ask (and understanding that many questions do not have [easy] answers) is the most important part of philosophy. It is often not up to philosophy to come up with the "right" answers. It may be society, politicians, judges or scientists that need to make the decision; but they can be helped by being given the best questions to ask.

You have ignored all the previous answers to your questions. As you are clearly not interested in learning and correcting your mistakes, why should we keep answering the same question again and again. It is pointless, unless you are willing to engage in discussion.

All of your threads are about your lack of understanding of the basics of SR and inability to do basic math (because you are blinded by your prejudices). Ghideon's suggestion is the obvious answer, but this is not worth wasting any more time on.