Strange

So when you read the specs of the processor in your new computer and it says that it will run at 1.6 GHz as long as the core voltage is between 1.2V and 1.6V, and the temperature is less than 35ºC you refuse to accept that until Intel release the simulations and you can run them yourself. Because otherwise, you would be taking the word of an authority. Ditto, previous example with airplanes. And (as you liked the GR example so much) when you read a report that Hafele and Keating have confirmed the predictions of GR you refuse to accept it until you have bought your won atomic clocks, hired a jet plane and done the experiment yourself. After all, believing what is in a scientific journal would just be an argument from authority. No it wouldn't because you have moved the goalposts. But I must congratulate you on your mastery of rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies. Gosh. That's an original line. Haven't heard that before.

It doesn't say "EXACTLY half the spinning coins should end up heads and exactly half should end up tails." (And, more importantly, as swansont says, it is just an analogy, and not very accurate.) We know that one particle annihilates with exactly one anti-particle (so, 1 - 1 = 0). But you are suggesting that, somehow, there can be a slight mismatch so that 1,000,000,000 - 1,000,000,001 = 0. However, you have no explanation for how this could happen. And that is what is missing: an explanation. We already know that there is some mismatch between mater and antimatter, but it doesn't appear to be enough to account for the amount of matter we see. So we have a partial explanation. (Sorry if I was a bit brief/cryptic before: I was on my phone!)

That isn’t what it says. That a bit like saying, why couldn’t 1 billion minus 1 billion and 1 equal zero. That is what we appear to see but the question is why.

Bollocks. (I already posted a link that answers this denialist lie but you obviously ignored it. No discussion going on here. Reported to the mods for soap boxing.)

It depends what level you want to understand it. Classical theory is perfectly good enough for most everyday cases. That is not really the role of physics. Physics describes how things with those properties behave. (It is possible that some future theory might explain why some of those properties exist, but there will be other unexplained things.)

The testable criteria is "does this model accurately model climate". This is then tested by modelling past periods where we have data on the inputs to the model and measurements corresponding to the outputs of the model. When the model doesn't match, it is modified to correct for the errors or missing factors that caused it to be wrong. Before you get on an aeroplane (a much riskier thing, in the short term, than thinking about climate change) do you insist on first seeing the aerodynamic and structural models used to build the plane? Do you ask what criteria were used to test these models? Or do you .... trust in the expertise and authority of those who did the work? Just asking ... Is it hot in here because of climate change or because your pants are on fire?

Note that both LCD and LED displays are LCD displays! The difference is just the type of backlight. An LCD display can be reflective (no backlight) or use a fluorescent or electroluminescent panel for illumination. An LED display is an LCD using LEDs as a light source. An OLED display is a “real” LED display using an array of (organic) LEDs to create the image.

I think it shows that "living" is not a binary thing. It is a spectrum. Viruses are "less alive" than plants or animals, and things like prions are even less alive.

You have no idea how bizarre this argument sounds to those outside the USA. It might have made some sense at the time, because of the history of the colonies, but now it just sounds ridiculous. America boasts about the importance of democracy and about being a great democracy. And yet you cannot trust the democratic system. Most other democracies work very well without the constant threat of civil war or revolution to keep their politicians in line. There are certainly countries that depend on armed militias to maintain some semblance of order. But do you really want to compare the USA with third-world countries run by local warlords? The times when American democracy has gone horribly wrong (for example the internment of Japanese-Americans during the war, the McCarthy witch-hunts) no one rose up to use their weapons overthrow the government. And when, arguably, "the people" did use their weapons (the civil war) it was one bunch of politicians (and wealthy businessmen) against another group, both of them just using the people for their own ends.

You said you were using logic. That is all I was commenting on. Based on the premise that there are N contradictory beliefs, you cannot conclude that there are zero that are correct. You can only conclude that not all of them can be correct (they are contradictory). Therefore, there is a possibility that one of them is correct. Of course, there is also a possibility that none of them are correct (which is why I said "at best"). But you cannot conclude that to be the case, from the premise, based on logic.

He was wrong.

Except, of course, they do. Oh come on. You're not fooling anyone.

I have no idea what that means. And yet it does. You have tried this before. There are all sorts of possible reasons. You believe it is because your god chose to make it that way. But there is no rational reason to believe that. And why did she choose that way and not a different way? You cannot answer, so it isn't really any sort of answer or explanation at all. You have just moved from "we don't know why the universe is the way it is" to "we don't know why a mythical god made it the way it is". Not exactly helpful as an explanation; it is still l"we don't know". But at least with science, there is a chance we could find out more and get a better answer. Whereas you have stopped any further enquiry and discovery by saying "thats just the way it is".

And that is not true. As has been explained several times. You know there is a name for saying things that are not true?

There is no evidence that the universe was created. And the BGV theorem does not prove it was. Stop lying.

Ok. Please use the Einstein Field Equations to calculate the height of a geostationary satellite. Show you working. So they say. I'm not sure I believe them. They are being funded by Big Gravity to say this. Because weather forecasting relies on taking the current conditions and working out how it will change over a period of time. This means that the atmosphere is divided up into small cells. Then the temperature, water content, air speed, energy in and out (from other cells, the Sun, the Earth, etc), for each cell is calculated. The changes in each cell are evaluated and then this is repeated. To be accurate, the cells and the time steps need to be quite small (TBH, I don't know how small). So it takes hours of supercomputer power to predict a few days ahead. The errors in the modelling of interaction of cells accumulate over time so the forecast diverges. On the other hand, climate models take a set of conditions (energy input, content of the atmosphere, temperature of the atmosphere, ground and oceans, solubility of CO2 and other gases, and all sorts of other things) and work out what the resulting temperature is likely to be. Large scale movements of energy (absorption and release by the oceans, prevailing winds, etc) will be taken into account, but it is not a second-by-second model of constantly changing conditions. I am rather surprised that someone who is so sure that models don't exist, if they do exist aren't tested, and if they are tested are still wrong, doesn't actually know anything about how these models work. When you did all that "research" to find out about climate models, what did you actually do? Ask you pastor? Read some blogs by Republican investors in the oil industry? Sorry. I am sceptical (as I should be on a science site, don't you agree?) Without evidence, I think this very unlikely. But feel free to prove me wrong by working through an example. (If you copy it from the web, it will be obvious.)

You are not using evidence. You are claiming that the universe was created from "metaphysical nothingness" by a "special agent" (DiNozzo, I hope). 1. There is no evidence the universe was created. (You are lying about what the Big Bang model says, you are living about what the BGV theorem says) 2. No one claims that the universe was created from "metaphysical nothingness" (so this is another lie). 3. You claim that your god created the universe - there is no evidence for this and simply repeating your beliefs is known as preaching.

No it isn't. Please stop lying like this. Reported for preaching again.

One can believe in it. But it is not relevant to the existence of the universe.

There is no evidence that the universe was created and yet you repeatedly claim there is.

And what a surprise: a dishonest straw man argument (I have already said that forecasts become increasingly inaccurate and have limited value after 7 to 10 days). I really wasn't expecting that. Yep. So have we. Are you going to be starting a thread on how evolution is wrong as well? So if I gave you a scenario, you could use the Einstein Field Equations to come up with a solution? I suspect not. So you have not personally checked that the EFE are not falsified; you haven't done the math, run the models to check it. You trust the scientists who have done this work (which often includes very complex models) to say that the model works and hasn't been falsified. As someone who has spent most of my working life creating, using and testing complex models ... No. Why are you willing to trust the experts in other fields of science and technology who rely on models, but not in this field? That is a little .... odd.

It is complicated (although it is simpler than weather forecasting, in some ways). Which is why vast amounts of work go into testing and validating the models. Also, models do not produce a single result. They produce a range of results. They are run multiple times with slightly different conditions to see both the range of results produced and also as another way of checking them. And yet you said... According to you, teacher is asking the impossible (for the students to create or find something like a few millions lines of Fortran code, and then run and test the results) and then using the fact that the students can't do this to claim that climate science is a fraud. You / the teacher seem quite happy to ignore the fact that the models do exist, and are tested and reviewed. By professional scientists.

That may deserve a separate thread. But in summary: you are wrong. What are you going to do with millions of lines of Fortran source code? https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016920701630053X https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf And a couple of million results here: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=testing+climate+models I can see why you found it soooo hard to find information on how climate models are tested. /sarcasm Have you seen the models used to test the aerodynamics and safety of airplanes? Have you seen those models tested? Are you doubtful that planes can fly? Have you seen the models used to design and test microprocessors? Have you seen these models tested? Do you doubt the your computer works? Maybe you are happy to trust experts in some fields, but not those where it disagrees with your politics? So go to university, study climate science, do a PhD on the testing of climate models. Apply the scientific method, if that is what you want to do. Or read the scientific papers published on the subject (where scientist publish what their models do, how they are tested, etc. then other scientists critique their work, etc.). We do get a bit sick of people using these sort of faux-naive questions to pretend that others aren't applying the scientific method. It is dishonest and pretty offensive to those professionals working in the field (and science in general).

So we can rewrite this sentence: I am seeing the continuum of quantum physics as the spacetime continuum. As: I am seeing the space time continuum as the spacetime continuum. Not a very useful insight. The rest of your sentences seem to be equally vapid. The energy component of the stress-energy tensor is not time, it is energy. GR is a classical theory and therefore the math of GR has nothing to do with evolution of waveforms. You seem to be hallucinating.

Well why not start with the first one: Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam. (I read the bible once—the Old Testament, anyway—and was bemused by the fact there are two different versions of genesis. I think my reaction was, “this book needs a good editor”. And all those endless lists of Ahab begat Zebedee who begat Phlumox who begat Sheba who begat Tesla who ...)