Strange

But someone else, moving relative to you, may say that one happened before the other. And someone else could say that they happened the other way round. (And that is key to understanding the Twin Paradox, although I don't feel able to give a good explanation myself!)

I can't see any of those being insults. They are comments on your idea, pointing out the flaws in it. Instead of having a hissy fit, why not explain "where the C/π ×C/√π originates ... why I state there is a connection between the two Phi's!" You never know, you might be able to prove it is not numerology. And we are still waiting. Two pages on. He seems to have all sorts of weird English tics. I think it may be a religious thing (you know, like some Jews writing G*d).

Evidence? And who is Mark Clayton Beal? We already have an explanation for that.

Who? Can you provide a source for these quotations?

Because dimreeper insists it is not innate. And therefore must be learned. The only source he has mentioned for this is the Bible. Maybe there are others. But it isn't clear how babies learn this trick of contentment (as, apparently, they have to).

So now fear isn't innate either? Only fairness? (And psychological studies show that fairness is dependent on the circumstances.) I get the impression you have painted yourself into a corner with "contentment is not innate", don't want to admit you were wrong and are just making random assertions to defend it. Can you provide a rational argument or evidence that contentment is not innate?

So you don't want constructive criticism? Why post your ideas, then? (And what insults?)

Who? "Wherever I hang my hat, that's my home" Marvin Gaye

Why is fear innate but conentedness not? They both depend on the circumstances - which you seem to be saying is what invalidates contentment as innate. I just said that was obviously true. It is also irrelevant to innateness. Do you deny that a well treated baby is less often fearful than a badly treated one? So it is innate?

I'm not. I am pointing out that your contrived near-coincidence of two values cannot have any meaning. It is numerology. I would have expected that to be the first thing you said. But go on, tell us. I'm sure it is going to be fascinating.

It might be the case that most people today would assume m/s (although not many people would assume 108 m/s). But a lot of people in the USA, and even more people in the past, would probably think first of miles per second. And aliens on another planet might think of it as qwerkles per blonk. So it isn't "natural" except to a proportion of humans at a particular time in history. It certainly has no universal meaning. Unlike the mathematical version, which is based on the way things grow in nature. And so aliens on another planet would almost certainly be aware of that as well.

It would probably be more paradoxical if he hadn't learned to read and write and operate a computer!

Well, obviously, yes. I suspect we think the word "innate" means different things, or something. Because you are saying it is not innate and yet it is something babies are able to do without being taught or trained (unlike language, arithmetic, swimming, yoga, etc). That to me is pretty much the definition of "innate". So I'm not sure how you can say it isn't innate, unless you think "innate" means something different to me. What is the difference?

One way of measuring the spacing of electrons from the nucleus is by spectral lines emitted by atoms. Atoms in space have exactly the same spectral lines as atoms on Earth (or close to the Sun or anywhere else)

The countries with weapons of mass destruction are not, in general, in the Middle East. So there's the good news. The birth rate has already started falling, the population is about to peak and will soon start falling. The world is getting healthier, poverty is being reduced, there are more people in education, etc. (which is why the birth rate is falling).

There wasn't anything relevant in there, as far as I could tell. But at least it was short. (See what I did there.)

How can that be "nature's" Phi when you are using the arbitrary and man-made units of 108 m/s? You don't get an approximation to Phi with imperial (American) units or with furlongs/fortnight.

So who teaches the baby about contentment? And how? Similarly animals; who teaches them about contentment?

You haven't presented a model. Is there one experimentally testable idea in this drivel? No. There is nothing to be proven wrong. There is no science here. It is not how the brain works. And, as you admit, you have no basis for thinking this. It is just stuff you have made up. A fairy tale. It has nothing to to with them being "professionals". It is the fact that they use evidence to come to conclusions about how the brain works. 1. It is ridiculous to compare the meaningless word salad you have posted with the work of these people. 2. They had all studied and thoroughly understood the subject before attempting to make advances. Unlike you making ignorant pronouncements. It doesn't.

Something that only exists n mathematics and courts of law. Not physics. Sorry, don't have time to wade through the rest of your Wall'o'Text right now. But a quick glance suggests: "don't post while stoned".

I think you need a book on electronic engineering. For some reason, electrical and electronic engineering are often combined at (pre-university) college level (at least in the UK). The electrical side skips over theoretical details beyond ohms law (other than those associated with complex impedance and Z-transforms) but the electronic side does explain how devices like diodes work.

The world is a big place. Some local wars are not going to cause the end of humanity. (Global warming is a much more significant danger.)

But you said it is impossible to know her mental state. So why assume she is dreaming?\ Absolutely none. Why would I have. So you agree that if a baby is content, then it must be innate?

It seems far simpler to say that the dark is an absence of light. Done. Why make it so complicated? And, as others have noted, impossible.

You said you are not saying GR is wrong, and yet you propose gravitational waves that behave completely differently than those described by GR. You also describe photons behaving completely differently than current quantum field theory. Do you have any evidence that "wave energy" flows from photons? Do you have any evidence that gravitational waves flow from all objects?