Strange

Have you tried this with totally random numbers? I'm sure you can find patterns like this in almost any sequence.

There is a saying, "time is what clocks measure" (in the same way that space is what rulers measure). In that case, if everything measures the same change in time, then isn't that the same as saying that "time has slowed"? And note that all SR says is that different people will measure space and time differently. They are both symptoms or consequences of the same thing. I do not believe this is generally true. Which is why I was reluctant to share it wth you. I had a feeling you would grab onto it like a lifebelt to prop up your mistaken beliefs. This is patently nonsense. No more than magnets emit and absorb photons. In other words, not at all. No. No.

Are you from Bristol?

Because you know that a shoe (pen, watch, battleship, etc) is made by people. There is no evidence that the universe is made at all, let alone an intelligence. Your argument seems to be: "I believe god created the universe, so the most likely explanation for the creation of the universe is god." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

On the other hand, it could be a single fungus - even if it has infected a whole forest... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-largest-organism-is-fungus/

Perhaps we can say that "philosophy should be based on logic". But, as you say, inductive reasoning is arubaly less reliable at serving correct results. That is my point. From a false premise you may get a false result, even if you use correct logic. It is important to understand that logic is purely about the form of the argument not the truth of it.

That is called a Lagrange point. It is highly unstable. http://www.space.com/30302-lagrange-points.html

You pronounce fungus and fungi the same way?

Logic does not tell you if something is correct or not. It just tells you if it is logical. In other words, whether the conclusion follows from the initial starting points. So, for example, a classic example of a logical argument is: 1. All humans are mortal 2. Socrates is human 3. Therefore Socrates is mortal We know that if the premises (1) and (2) are true then the conclusion (3) must also be true. But we can use exactly the same structure to say: 1. All animals have four legs 2. My dog is an animal 3. Therefore my dog has four legs. That looks plausible but, using the same logic again: 1. All animals have four legs 2. Socrates is an animal 3. Therefore Socrates has four legs. So we can see that using a valid logical argument with a false premise means we can't say whether the conclusion is correct or not. I disagree. Logic is a very important component of philosophy. Formal logic is one of the first things taught in a philosophy course.

You seem to be confusing two things: space and what that space contains. The space can't be nothing, it is ... well, space. The space could contain nothing though. And that is the old "planetary" model of atoms: a nucleus with electrons orbiting it like little moons. But now we know that model is wrong and the electrons are actually distributed like a cloud around the nucleus. So there is no empty space in the atom; it is all full of electron. And, like space everywhere, it is also full of virtual particles popping in and out of existence. To simplify enormously, the repulsion of negative charges of their electrons hold them apart. (On the other hand, it is also the electrons that bond atoms together in molecules.)

Yawn.... I don't have a problem understanding what you are saying, just why... Hey, did you know that the sky is blue!

Science is always more advanced than philosophy because its ideas can be tested. It s therefore useful while philosophy is never useful in a practical sense. There is no way of knowing if philosophy is correct or not. As there are as many different philosophical ideas as there are philosophers, and many of those ideas are contradictory, it would seem that it is impossible for it to always be correct. It doesn't make quantitative and testable predictions. So you can never know if it is accurate or wildly wrong. When it is not testable, perhaps. Neither science nor philosophy can tell us anything about reality. And it is philosophy tells us why that is the case.

Because it would take light more time to cross the expanded space? (I don't really understand why you think there is a problem.) So, for example, the edge of the observable universe is about 47 billion light years away. It took light 13 billion light years to get here from there, but when the light was emitted, it was only about 4 billion light years away. (Those numbers are from memory, so may not be exactly right). So I suppose you could say that light took 13 billion years to travel 4 billion light years, making its speed about 1/3rd of c. But that doesn't change the fact that everybody measures the same speed of light.

Then perhaps you should find (or do) some before deciding to design a new keyboard. https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=keyboard+ergonomics So you haven't seen any research but you think it is BS. That is barely rational. Don't forget that most of those designs have evolved over time based on the ergonomics of using them. There are a range of different products which depart from the "ancient technology": http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/ahtutorials/ckd.htm That may be true, but it doesn't mean that a regular grid is more ergonomic. If anything, the little evidence I have seen suggests that an even less linear arrangement is better. I can't see why you think that is so outrageous. It is very obviously true. And it seems plausible that a more ergonomic layout would make the most frequently used keys (etaoinshrdlu, for English, I think) the easiest to reach. OK. The outrageous thing is "faint" historical meaning, when in fact the order has been preserved with little change from the original Egyptian writing system that Semitic scripts evolved from.

I don't know what "expanding time" means. But you can choose different coordinate systems where space doesn't expand but the speed of light varies instead. If that is what you mean. But it is more complicated and less intuitive.

Your keyboard is broken.

So, this is covered on day one of an intro to linguistics course. Do you have anything new or insightful to add?

I'm not sure who "they" refers to, but the contingent nature of scientific theories is pretty well understood. Apart form stating a few basic ideas from linguistics, I don't have a clue what your point is. None the wiser.

Good. Because this is a science forum and you clearly know nothing about science. We don't welcome this sort of ignorant preaching.

Then it is no longer science.

Firstly, I'm afraid you are going to get a lot of grief over the ignorant nonsense in your article. Hopefully, future articles you write will be better researched. For example, you start off with the popular myth about "8 glasses of water a day". This nonsense has been debunked many times, and it would have only taken you a few minutes to discover this. I pretty much stopped reading at the word "toxins". And definitely at the idiocy about fluoride and cancer. Your commenter is pretty much correct about electrolytes. I doubt very much that drinks manufacturers would pay extra for distilled water. And even if they cause minerals to be lost in the urine (which sounds dubious) that is not because they are made with distilled water. After all, in the end, water is just water. The most interesting thing about this (apart from why so many people want to believe it) is that it is one of those rare myths where the source is known. http://www.snopes.com/medical/myths/8glasses.asp

As the OP makes the (equally idiotic) claims that "the topic is taboo in the medical profession" it is not far off.

It is a version of the "Twin Paradox" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

You will have taken a different path through space-time than someone who remained sitting in the chair next to yours. As a result, less time will have passed for you (by an immeasurably small amount).

That isn't what the OP said (which is what John was responding to). The claim was: "Modern diet and stress cause homosexuality." In which case, most people would be homosexual. It is entirely possible (but it sounds implausible) that diet or stress may have some sort of small influence one way or another. But that would need supporting evidence.