Strange

You mean, "are there any studies". Why would this need a study? It has existed for as long as recorded history, and probably a lot longer. By what definition of the word would it be "unnatural"? I see you are keen to see support for statements made by others (despite you not providing any support for your opinions). So ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8433527/First-homosexual-caveman-found.html http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/dallas.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality http://www.timesofisrael.com/4000-year-old-erotica-depicts-a-strikingly-racy-ancient-sexuality/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

Nope. Reality is inherently unknowable. All we can know is what our senses tell us (actually, the idea that we have senses could be an invention of our mind!). You seem to be missing the key point about science which is that it tests its models. (And that works, whatever the nature of reality, or even if there is no such thing.)

Science has nothing to do with truth. It creates models that describe and, to some extent, explain what we perceive around us. That does not depend on the existence of any external reality (see also, the regular threads about living in a simulation).

As you say, there are no numerical values. So you do not appear to have any justification for assuming that "differs from zero" is the same as "approximately equal to zero". As you appear to understand the maths, I assume you could put some values in and see how "different from zero" this result is. So, even without being able to follow all of the maths, I find their (and other) arguments convincing because: 1. If someone says "not zero" I do not immediately think that they mean "approximately zero". 2. We know already that light and matter are affected differently by the curvature of spacetime. 3. They detected something; if not gravitational waves, then what? Not in every direction. For example, there is (as I understand it) no distortion in the z (direction of travel) direction). And the distortion in x and y are not the same. However, you would be right if one were trying to use a material ruler to measure the change in another material object. But we know that light and massive objects do not respond to changes in the curvature of space-time in the same way (otherwise, for example, the prediction for the degree of gravitational lensing by GR would match that for Newtonian gravity). And this is what the Faraoni paper shows, in the case of the interferometer. So we can measure the differential change in the effect on the arms and the light. They may well be waves of space-time, but they also travel through space. (Not that I can see the relevance of this comment either way.)

That "proof" only exists inside your own mind. As does everything you know about "reality". Anything you think of as independent evidence of the existence of others is also purely in your own mind. You have no access to reality (or the existence others) except through your senses; in other words, what your mind tells you. And we know that often deceived you. So it may seem obvious that reality exists "out there" and that there are other people, but it is just your mind telling that! The words you should have highlighted were ones like "assumin" and "indicate" and others showing a lack of certainty. Also, as you should know, all scientific statements of "fact" should be (and implicitly are) accompanied by statements such as: as far as we know; current evidence indicates; consistent with our best models; subject to change; etc

I didn't think it was as an insult, nor directed at me. I just think it is a ridiculous thing to say to anyone, especially kids. You manage to do that to all your threads. You should learn to focus a bit.

Nope. Because it could all be happening entirely in your head. There may be no other people (and no other reality) other than what is in your head. Absolutely. Science can say nothing about reality. All it can do is describe what we observe. (And, note that that works equally well even if there is no external reality and it is all created by your mind.) Not only can science not say anything about reality, but nothing (other than blind faith) can say anything about reality. It might be. Or the external reality might be completely different. Or it may not exist. How would you know. You can only know what your sense tell you. You have no independent way of checking they are "true". That is a very dangerous (and unscientific) approach. One thing we have learned from science is that our senses (and memories) are very, very unreliable. If you think your senses are more important than objective reality, does that mean that you think the two squares in this image are actually different colours even though, objectively, they are the same? You appeared to express disbelief that people could experience hallucinations that affect more than one sense (in a consistent way). Which is obviously wrong.

Oh come on. Really? You don't believe that people such as those with schizophrenia who see people that aren't there and talk to them, are not having a consistent visual and auditory hallucination? They can probably smell and touch the person as well. FFS. And I can assure you that certain chemical substances that cause hallucinations can cause you to both see and hear things that do not exist. But even if that didn't actually happen in the world (we think) we live in, that is irrelevant. From the point of view of a logical(*) argument it is possible that hallucinations can create a completely false reality that cannot be detected or tested in any way. (*) And I mean logical in the strict philosophical/mathematical sense, not "oh, that doesn't seem right to me" sort of logic (aka common sense).

Sigh. You are absolutely right. Again. I had forgotten about Terrell rotation. But, as you say, even though it ends up not looking oblate, it is. As shown by scattering in particle accelerators. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/penrose.html

In principle yes (although I have no idea what this has to do with the subject). And this is confirmed by experiments in particle accelerators.

I know - was just trying to pretend it was a typo and I knew what it was supposed to be. In fact, I'm not sure I have ever seen the word written down before. At least, not since we did Merchant of Venice at school... Of course, to be on topic, I should have said, "ha ha, I meant 279 not 312"

Interesting question. I am guessing the answer is no, otherwise we would have seen headlines. But there might be some cautious ideas out there that haven't been exaggerated by the press. An impressive combination of being arrogant, offensive and wrong. While both very interesting, that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. TBH I would find it pretty offensive in any context. Maybe that makes me abnormal. Or maybe it means I care about people's feelings. You decide.

And, of course, I meant "bated breath". An example of Muphry's Law in action.

1. There is no attached file. 2. The rules say you should present your point directly in the forum. 3. It doesn't just sound impossible, it sounds meaningless.

It doesn't need to exist. As far as we know, they don't exist. But IF space-time can be described by quantum field theory then the quanta would be what we call gravitons. (I don't know where "not existing outside a black hole" came from. Or even what it means.) That seems pretty comprehensively meaningless. Maybe you should try and learn what some of those words mean so you can put them together in a sentence that makes sense.

Given the lack of context, I am guessing this means: your numbers/indices are simply a transliteration of the words. Do you have any comment on the need for grammar and context to understand a list of words? The meanings (or concepts associated with each word/index) are not enough by themselves. I am struggling to parse the first sentence here (ironically). Are you (effectively) talking about first language acquisition here? It is certainly true that infants learn the meanings of words and the grammar of a language by learning the probabilities of certain collocations and contexts. Is this what you are talking about? I do not have any "presumptions I want to make". (I guess you mean "assumptions", but never mind. Maybe they accidentally got given the same index number; even though they have completely different meanings.) I am simply trying to get a better understanding of what you are trying to say; or, more importantly, why you are saying it. You are painfully slow to get to the point. Which is why there are some far more interesting and productive side discussions going on. No. There is no concern or problem here. It is, by now, quite clear that all you want to do is replace words with numbers. You have explained this half a dozen times. WE GET IT. Can we move on now to why you think this is useful? It isn't. It is trivial to understand. You want to replace words with numbers. I don't know why you think anyone has a problem with it. It also seems pointless. I am waiting, with baited breath, to find out what the point is. So PLEASE, get on with it. Certainly you can transcribe the elements of a written or spoken language in numerical format. We do it all the time. I would like to see some justification of your claim about probabilities and truth. But I would be willing to accept that, for the time being, if it means we can move on and you can get to the bloody point. You have taken 4 pages to just say the same thing over and over again. You justify this tedious repetition by your assertion that people don't understand you. THEY DO. An idiot could understand you. You have said nothing complicated nor, so far, interesting or novel. If people seem confused it may because what you have said about replacing words with numbers is so mind-bogglingly obvious and well known, it is hard to believe that is all you have to say. I still hope that you might have something interesting to say based on this idea of representing words as numbers, but this hope is rapidly fading. If you repeat your "no one understands me" sob-story again, I will report you for trolling. So grow up, stop acting like a petulant teenager and just get on with it. (I suspect that if you start a new thread, the mods will merge it with this one. But that is up to them.)

Perhaps for the same reason we ignore the possible real-world presence of hills and walls.

We are not all praying. And not everybody has a version of the creator.

I guess the military just think that planes or missiles are better delivery mechanisms than tractors. Go figure!

I am not suggesting that, merely pointing out that it is one of the possibilities. And, of course, something infinite can expand. Consider the infinite natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...) with a "distance" of 1 between them. Now double the numbers so the gap between them is twice as large (0, 2, 4, 6, ...). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel This would only be a problem if you thought the universe was expanding into otherwise empty space. But that would be silly. It was based on the Einstein Field Equations. It was initially developed by Lemaitre in 1927. It is painfully obvious that you don't have a clue from the drivel you keep posting. The problem here is that you think your ignorance gives you some special insight. It doesn't it just makes you look a fool. Being proud of your ignorance and refusing to learn about science because you don't like the conclusions it leads to is just pathetic.

So you are incapable of understanding what you read, then? That would explain a lot. Although, you are right that the expansion of the universe was predicted by theory before it was detected. Which is why it is generally accepted as the best model. As opposed to the incoherent ramblings of some ignorant guy on the internet.

Kurt Vonnegut. Your hypothesis is falsified.

Nope. Because the "other person" could be a creation of the first person's mind. (As indeed, could the first person.) So sensing them, and communicating with them to compare models could all happen in one persons mind.

Exactly. (Although I think it is a bit silly to use the word "god" to describe this.) And maybe that is why invoking god is a mistake. It doesn't matter whether an individual knows or beliefs they are the only thing in the universe, it is impossible to prove they are not. You are saying that a god would know. But we aren't talking about god, we are talking about you or me. Or you can say that "common sense" tells you that it is wrong. But that common sense could be (and, in reality, usually is) an illusion as well. You can assume that. But there is no evidence for it. And no way of proving it. That is all I am going to say on the matter. There is another forum where the discussion on the nature of reality has been (voluntarily) limited to one thread which has been going for what seems like a million years and it is just repeating the same arguments over and over.

As Newton showed, mathematically, and as Zapatos has alluded to, the pull of all that stuff "out there" cancels out and has no effect on us. See the link provided earlier.