Strange

And making people aware that there are (at least) these two ways thinking about the problem is valuable.

As you are flat out wrong about this (YOU implied that philosophy solved problems. THAT was the reason for the question) I see little reason to trust anything else you say. But as you haven't actually contributed anything, that is no great loss.

Antares uses kerosene not hydrogen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antares_%28rocket%29

I wasn't comparing living and inert bodies. Were you? Are these random leaps from one topic to another an attempt to prove your point. Not necessarily true. Humans are currently have a far greater impact on the environment than it is on our evolution. And the entire modern environment (all that toxic oxygen, for example) is the result of the effects of living organisms. No. Atoms don't evolve. Not really. But they won't all change simultaneously. You seem to be constantly mixing metaphors and reality. There is no such thing as a psychological force. And if there were, there is no real reason it would be resisted. It has already been explained to you, with many examples as evidence, that people are not as resistant to change as you claim. I have no idea. If reason won't change your mind, maybe some random event will.

Ditto. And ditto.

<sigh> Expansion isn't a speed. The speed depends on the distance between two points. There are, and always have bee,n points that are sufficiently far apart that their speed of separation is faster than light.

I have tried to address this multiple times. You either ignore it or accuse me of trying to trick you. You could explain why my analysis is wrong: have I misunderstood what you are claiming? have I deduced the wrong results? Or perhaps you could propose an experiment where this could be tested if you don't like mine. Now, reading what you have written above, it seems to say something very different from what you appeared to be saying earlier. So let's try again. Just to help you understand why I am confused by this: 1. I originally thought you meant that the acceleration due to gravity caused the object to lose mass. You didn't say this was wrong, so I am not sure if I misunderstood or not. 2. I have never been sure whether the horizontal versus vertical acceleration is significant or not. 3. Now it seems that you are saying that the acceleration produced by a given force of gravity is different from the acceleration produced by the same magnitude of force from some other source. Is that correct, or have I failed to understand again? If it is that last one, then you would seem to be saying that gravitational mass and inertial mass are not equal. Is that the case?

What does relativity have to do with it? We don't fail to recognize life because we are moving relative to it. Right. Which has nothing to do with "frame of reference". It is to do with self-organizing structures and reactions. Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by "frame of reference" as you appear to be using it in a very non-standard way.

That is quite surreal. Or maybe metaphysical. I get the impression you weren't really interested in answering the question, just promoting your beliefs. I agree. But I haven't yet seen any examples of problems solved or questions answered, yet. And I don't see your approach of saying all other approaches are wrong is in at all helpful. That is a bit like the people who pop up here, now and again, and say "all science is wrong" but don't have any alternative. Well, I was interested. Hence this thread. I can't agree it is useless.

I have seen mentions of models based on something called "Chapylin gas" that unites the two. I have no idea if that is at all plausible or even valid.

For the same reason that distance can't!

The most useful description of time is that it is a fourth dimension, along with the three spatial dimensions. So if you wan to meet someone you have to specify the spatial coordinates (x,y,z or latitude,longitude,altitude) plus the time. This is the basis for special relativity which is a very successful way of describing the world and also forms the basis of modern quantum theory.

I do not think you are an idiot. And if I ever said that, I apologise. I do think your knowledge of physics is limited. (But so is mine.) I have never managed to understand what you mean by the difference between gravity and gravitation.

It is also worth saying that very few theories are shown to be completely wrong. In most cases a more accurate theory is developed that does not invalidate the previous theory. For example, simple Newtonian mechanics and gravity are taught at school because they are accurate enough for the purpose and far easier to understand than a relativistic treatment. That doesn't make them lies. Now, if a chemistry teacher tried to teach kids about phlogiston ... But it would be worth knowing what theories you are thinking of.

As you consistently refuse to provide any data to support this, I assume it is not true. No it doesn't.

No. It was asked because you said that philosophy solves problems. (Specifically you said that Dennett had not solved any problems, which is what led me to wonder what problems any philosopher had solved.) It might be evidence that philosophy is useless (but I don't believe that). You haven't presented anything that solves any problems so I'm not sure what you are saying.

No. You should have just explained it correctly (using plain English).

Not really. All that says is that he doesn't like their first video. On the other hand, it shows that the technology that Hendo claims to use works. And it ignores the other videos that show prototypes. I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt -- maybe it was made before that information was available -- but no, it is new. He has just cherry picked some irrelevant information (a cheesy video) and doesn't say anything about the actual product. Disappointing. It is also rather dishonest to start with that obvious fake video sequence as if to imply that therefore the Hendo must be fake. (I skipped past that, so I don't know if he justifies/excuses that.)

Not useless because it was written to solve a specific purpose. No compiler dependent because it is standard C so all compilers will correctly compile it. Although modern compilers might generate more efficient code automatically. Huh? Assembler code is about as non-portable (and non-maintainable) as you can get. One of the reasons for using high level languages is to create portable code. Also, there are few, if any, cases where hand-coded assembler is better than a modern compiler.

Because someone claimed that philosophy solves problems. The conclusion seems to be that it only solves problems created by philosophy, rather than real problems.

Well, if we are talking explosives, time to link to one of my favourite blogs: the "things I won't work with category" of In the Pipeline. http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/

I agree with the others. The best way to learn a new programming language (or paradigm, API, etc.) is to actually write a program. Preferably something realistic. I would choose a language (maybe something a bit more user-friendly when it comes to writing graphical user interfaces -- Java, C#, Python, HTML5/Javascipt, etc) and a good development tool (VisualStudio, Netbeans, ...) and then find a book with some examples/tutorials you can use to get started. It doesn't matter what language you use, because whatever you learn (other than some concrete syntax) can be transferred to your next project.

That is quite neat. I don't think I have ever seen that approach in source code but it is one strategy used when compiling case statements (and possibly if-else-if statements, but they are not as easy to analyse in the general case). I can imagine this being used in a loop, which reminded me of this: http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/duffs-device.html

Huh? What are you afraid of? I was pointing out that there is NO difference. If you push something it moves. Purely deterministic and mechanical. No randomness required. Why? No I am not. How can you apply a force to an idea. Based on past evidence, nothing at all. Even concrete evidence that you are wrong doesn't change your mind.

There is no way of using entanglement as a form of superluminal communication. If you think there is, can you explain how?