Strange

Citation needed.

What on Earth does any of this have to do with "the Left"? This is a science forum. In some senses, science is (potentially) always wrong. That is why everything that is thought to be "correct" is constantly retested.

That article (and that website) looks like nonsense. The scientific study looks sound, but as they say in the conclusion, more research is needed "to determine specific origins of male microchimerism in women."

Well, if you want to keep your own DNA (and not turn into the people you eat) I guess you would need to be an auto-cannibal. (Nasty SF ideas about people cloning themselves for food ...)

And... http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0069805

I'm not sure there is any such "realisation" as you suggest. It is just science working as it always does: looking at new ideas, testing and retesting old ideas, making changes as needed, discarding when necessary, and so on. That is what makes science so fascinating. Exciting even. Especially, when you don't just look for things that confirm your own beliefs/wishes about the world. It is just a working assumption, until we have evidence one way or the other. If people are finding evidence it is wrong, that's great. If people are finding evidence it is true, then that's great. Because it is just yet another scientific idea being explored. What did you expect the headlines to be? SCOTTY99 PROVED CORRECT. PICTURES AT 11.

That's news to me. Do you have a reference for that? Your personal beliefs are not very relevant or interesting, on a science site. Do you have any evidence for this? Of course it is. That is like saying "I don't think a centimetre is a real thing". You appear to have that exactly backwards. (I guess that is an attempt to justify your laziness in not learning any math or physics.)

The experiment has been done with electrons and even large molecules. These were certainly travelling at non-relativistic speeds. But I am curious how you are planning to replace all of quantum field theory. It is not enough to just come up with an alternative explanation for one experiment. You need a consistent mathematical model that explains all phenomena. The fact that distance can be measured using Planck units does not mean that space is quantised. There is zero evidence for that. And, as far as I know, in theories that assume quantised space, it is on a scale many orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length.

Sounds wrong to me. The median of two values is the same as the arithmetic mean. Which is, basically, half the observable universe radius (diameter?). And not the geometric mean, either I make that about 10 millionths of a metre.

But the same is true of a (simpler) tetrahedron or an icosahedron or a sphere. So there is no reason to visualise it as a cube. It doesn't require a boundary. If the volume is infinite, for example. But even if the universe is finite, it is assumed to have no boundary. (This is easier to imagine in 2 dimensions, the surface of a sphere, for example. Or a cube, if you must.)

And that is exactly why it works. The arm lengths change. The speed of light doesn't. Therefore (unlike the M-M experiment) there is a phase shift. I'm not sure what the reason for your denial of these simple facts is, but it has gone beyond rationality.

Really.

If the arms were being used as a meter stick, you might be right. But they aren't. The change in the arms is what is being measured. By using light. Which does not change in the same way.

The physical apparatus is affected one way the light is affected differently. What don't you understand about that? Or do you just refuse to accept it, despite informal and mathematical explanations? What (religious?) beliefs do you have that make it impossible for you to accept a mathematical result?

1. It isn't the same in every direction. 2. The apparatus is affected differently to the light. Which of these don't you understand?

What connection is there between capacitors and Millican's experiment?

If it is "pure scientific" why is it in Philosophy? As it is in philosophy, the important thing is to define exactly what you mean by "consciousness".

I admire the way that totally ignorant fools who value their deranged imaginings above real learning attempt to belittle real working scientists and others who have made some effort to study with comments like "wannabe" and "look it up on Wikipedia". It is chutzpah meets Dunning and Kruger.

To try and explain why science does not deal with "reality". It deals with things our senses tell us. That is all there is to it. You cannot know anything beyond what your senses tell your (or, more, accurately what your mind tells you that your senses say). Everything you know, all the information you have, is in your mind and created by your mind. Why not? How would you tell if there were something out there beyond what your mind tells you? Well, if you are defining "instance" to mean a visual stimulus perceived by a being, then there are an unbounded number. That is not what I understand "instance" to mean.

Are there any that show it is not natural?

Ask someone with schizophrenia. But it doesn't matter "how" it can happen. There is no independent evidence, beyond your own senses and mind, for the existence of anything (including other people). This is a straw man (or straw snake) argument. You invent a type of hallucination that doesn't correspond to reality and then claim it proves that hallucinations do not behave like reality. What about a hallucination of a snake that slithers out of the grass and then runs away when you approach it. It behaves just like a real snake. Also, we are not talking about drug-created hallucinations. They were just introduced to refute the claim that people cannot have hallucinations that affect all sense consistently. They obviously can, whether due to drugs or psychosis. But if you see a snake, you can only compare it to your idea of what a "real" snake should do based on your memories, which were created by your mind. So there is no reason that any snake you see (which is, therefore, a creation of your mind) would not behave exactly like your memory of other snakes created by your mind.

But the Earth that is studied may not have any existence beyond our minds. Perhaps because I am not. I don't know what the existence or non-existence of gods has to do with the subject. What difference does it make, whether you believe in a god/creator or not? Either way, you know nothing beyond what your senses tell you.

It can. But there is no reason to think it is correct. Actually, it can tell us a lot about what the star is doing now (in most cases). Unless you invoke the sort of reality you don't like, where stars can magically change their behaviour in defiance of known physics. There are a few exceptions. For example, Betelgeuse could have already gone nova (or could do so tomorrow) and we wouldn't know. But we only know that is a possibility because of science. Philosophy is not bound by the sort of "reality" that you think science describes and so is free to say anything at all about distant stars ("they are the eggs of space unicorns, and that star 4 light years away has recently hatch and will no long be visible in 3.5 years time"). No, there is only one star. (In reality, even if there are two in your mind.) Who knows. The nice thing about philosophy is that you get to choose the answers to these questions. (And religions lets someone else choose them for you! ) (If it reassures you at all, I am a "naive realist"; I believe that reality is pretty close to what we observe. But I know this is an irrational and completely unsupportable belief.) No I don't. For all I know, you could be a hallucination.

Indeed. And most people are avoiding that - partly by talking about science. That is correct. So science employs a philosophy of methodological naturalism that assumes that what we measure has some sort of independent existence and there are no supernatural effects beyond that. But that doesn't mean it is true. Science would work just the same, whatever the "true" nature of reality. The universe could have been created 5 minutes ago complete with our memories, fossils, 13.8 billion year old radiation, etc. Or it could be a simulation by hyperdimensional white mice. Or a figment of your imagination. And our science would work equally well in any case. The models work because they are consistent with our observations. Our observations do not necessarily correspond to any sort of reality.

That doesn't seem any different from your other argument. It also the fallacy of begging the question: if you accept that there are other conscious individuals, then this disproves solipsism. But there is no evidence, outside of your own mind, for other conscious individuals. Therefore there is no evidence against solipsism. 1. It is not a fact that you have free will. Depending on which definition of "free will" you uses, this ranges from impossible, to implausible to meaningless. 2. Even if you appear to have free will, it could be an invention of your mind. It says nothing about the existence of anything outside your mind. 3. Solipsism does not require an "ultimate mind or consciousness" (whatever that means); only that all the other conscious individuals you perceive are creations of your own mind. At an extreme (idealism) nothing exists except what is crated by your mind.