Strange

All of the religious evolutionary biologists (including those behind that web site). What evidence do you claim they are inventing? That is a pretty libellous claim. I hope you can defend it. As I said, there're a small number of people who prefer their personal interpretation of myth over reality. I even heard one person say that if reality contradicts the Bible then it is reality that is wrong. How deluded do you have to be to think that? I'm not entirely sure how that is relevant. He is religious and accepts the Big Bang model. The fact he tries to use that as evidence for his idea of god doesn't alter that. Some people try to use the existence of human consciousness or creativity as evidence for god. That doesn't mean they don't accept consciousness or creativity; quite the reverse in fact. So I don't see the point of this. (Although it was quite interesting to see thoughtful Christians criticising someone misusing science to justify their belief. Hey! That's my job!) Yeah. Just like none of them use contraception...

No we don't. One could argue that we don't know anything about how they are behaving until they are observe, but it is quite reasonable to conclude that they continue to behave in the same way. After all, the moon doesn't disappear if you stop looking at it. Citation needed. One of the problems with dark energy is that an easy explanation is the quantum vacuum energy, but this is many orders of magnitude too large, not too small. Well, duh. It is the only explanation. Well, no. If it was in places that were observable, then it would be in the observable universe and we could observe it. The whole point about the universe beyond the observable universe is that we can't observe it (because it is too far away and light cannot reach us from there). And the amount of dark energy is known from observation. And it is known to be in the observable universe. So you are not making very much (or any) sense.

No. It is simply one way of describing the way genes work in the evolutionary process. I'm not sure what your problem is with it. Perhaps you could explain? The whole point of the scientific process is that it assumes it is always wrong (or, at least, incomplete). Have you discredited the "factual biological evidence and the factual observational evidence" behind genetics, which underpins the selfish gene concept? No? I didn't think so.

Evolution and genetics, as noted, are well established science. But, even if it were not mainstream science (it is), it could still be discussed in the science sections of this forum. (As I understand the rules.) If someone wants to argue for some non-mainstream theory (even if it is not originally theirs) then that would have to be done in the Speculations forum. But if you think that modern genetics is wrong, then why not present your evidence for that in the Speculations forum. (Instead of hijacking another thread.) Actually, I wouldn't call "the selfish gene" a theory at all; as far as I can see, it is just an interpretation of the way genes work.

Luckily, science doesn't do that. (Personal prejudices, maybe. But the whole point of the scientific method is to eliminate those, as far as is practically possible.)

Because it was just discussing the published work of a well-known (and generally respected) scientist. It was not someone posting their own "personal theory".

Are you saying that data, evidence and citations will magically appear if I read it more slowly? That's impressive. Give me a few minutes and I'll let you know if that works or not....

I see zero (0) evidence in there. Could you provide references to the data and experimental evidence that supports this? Don't you mean: "One's (1's) conscious mind"

Obviously. There are multiple levels of processing that extract particular features (eg horizontal or vertical lines), movement, colour, depth information, before the final visual scene is presented to the consciousness. Because some of these take less time (happen at a "lower level" of consciousness) we are able to react to movement, for example, long before we are aware of what moved. This obviously has evolutionary advantages. How many channels? I didn't quite get that?

As much of the radio and audio frequency electronics would be the same as, say, a mobile phone, they could be combined. And then maybe we could add other features, like a music player. And a camera ...

Do you have evidence for that? Citation needed. Citation needed. Citation needed. Please show, quantitatively, that the amount of difference in acceleration due to gravity is sufficient to make the changes you claim. You could start by showing the actual difference in gravity between, say, the Tanzania in Africa and the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East. Citation and/or evidence required. Citation and/or evidence required. Quantitative evidence required. Citation needed. Citation needed. Citation needed. Citation very much needed. This will need some VERY compelling evidence. Basically I see a lot of assertions and no data or evidence.

What is different between one subset of particles and the other? Can you suggest some (other) way of measuring this difference? That is a "popular science" (journalistic) explanation and only has a very indirect resemblance to reality. You should watch Feynman'sQED videos (or read the book) which will give you a better idea of how a photon (or electron or whatever) is affected by everything around it (including the presence of slits, detectors, etc) All particles of a particular type (photon, electrons, etc) are identical so there is no known mechanism for some of them to interfere and others not (and for those that interfere to be not detected, etc). On the other hand, there is a known mechanism for the current explanation - the fact that the behaviour(and evolution over time) of "particles" is described by a wave function. The probability of a particle landing in a particular place (and hence contributing to the interference pattern or not) is determined by every possible path that the particle can take - through one or other slit, into the detector or not, and so on - once you calculate the sum of all those probabilities, you get the same result as the classical experiment.

You had plenty of answers. You just chose to ignore them and carry on making stuff up. You may satisfy yourself (which is why this activity is sometimes called “mental masturbation”. What does this have to do with metaphysics? It seems to be just (error filled) physics.

stint Logic Designer (one hopes designers will also be logical but, in my experience, it isn't a requirement)

As this will give different results from Newton's law it must be wrong. Reported for posting outside Speculations.

Google is your friend, for example: https://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2013-10-16/best-apps-for-tracking-flights https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/best-flight-tracking-apps/ Or, if you don't want to install an app: https://www.flightview.com/TravelTools/ https://www.flightradar24.com/ https://www.flightstats.com/v2/flight-tracker/search

The rules require you to present your argument, and the supporting math, here on the forum. (Reported) The same can be said about much malware. I certainly wouldn't trust a spreadsheet from an unknown source.

I heard of a very neat demonstration of this. An experiment where there is a screenful of text being read; eye-tracking is used to display the correct word on a screen only where the reader is actually looking. The rest of the screen is filled with nonsense words. To the reader, the text appears to be displayed normally. Anyone else looking at the screen sees nonsense text with words being replaced as the reader looks at them. They did a similar thing with dynamically removing the colour from everything in the peripheral vision, the person looking at the image still saw it all in full colour. (Sadly, can't find a reference to this. Think I heard it on a BBC radio science program.) If there is a "problem" with the forum (there isn't) then might be better described as "IH" (i.e. people tend be rather intolerant of people posting "stuff" they have invented).

I understood that was your point but could you explain how you reach that conclusion? You probably also need to define which sense of "free will" you mean. There are many possible meanings that vary from the political sense (does the state allow you to say and do whatever you wish) to the meaningless. In addition to Markus's excellent points, I would just add that we feel as if we have free will. And that would still be true if there is a logical argument that proves we don't. So what difference does it make.

Most of it is well known. Although it is presented rather incoherently and mixed up with a dash of nonsense you have made up. What was your point? What on Earth makes you think that? Does it make you feel clever to think you are being a dangerous rebel, or something?

Then let's see the mathematical model and how well its predictions match what we observe...

Of course. One of the main people behind the big bang model was a Roman Catholic priest (and astrophysicist), the Reverend Monsignor Georges Lemaitre. One of the most important people in the development of our understanding of inheritance and genetics was Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian monk. Paul Davies is a leading physicist and cosmologist who is also famous (infamous?) for his religious belief. There are many other scientists working in cosmology and evolution who have religious beliefs of various kinds. Modern cosmology and biology are officially and explicitly accepted by most major religions. There is a website biologos that explains how biological evolution and religious faith are not in conflict. Do I need to go on? Basically, there are a small number of loud-mouthed, ignorant people who think their personal opinions/beliefs trump reality.

I think you will agree that both the person on the train and the person "stationary" on the ground will agree that the time, T, for the sound to be sent and received increases with the increasing speed of the train? If so, then that trivially disproves your claim. But thanks for playing.

The odds are zero if you refuse to present your model and the evidence for it. Reported.

Except make any accidental inhalations even more dangerous! Can you still get leaded petrol? In backward countries like the US maybe? But, weirdly, apart from the title, leadenness doesn't seem to come into it.