Leaderboard

If only that were true. Biden could win by as many as 5,000,000 votes and still lose

We lack a model to do so, and lack the ability to test any model one might propose. Our model works for massive particles. We can only describe photons from our frame of reference.

Sorry for the condescending tone. Terminology is vital if you want to get your idea understood. Here is a suggestion, pick one small piece of your ideas and take some time to write it out. If someone questions an idea like "energy has direction", let's discuss it and make sure we have the same definition of 'energy' and 'direction'.

It makes you look lazy, not crazy. You've developed a narrative that allows you to reject anything you deem too difficult or technical ("I think in 3d objects and complex emotions, not words") and substitute it for something you've made up by intuition and guesswork. Somewhere along the line, you got the idea that everything in science has to make intuitive sense to you before you'll accept it. It's pretty common in the age of the internet, where people learn science in the form of popular articles trying to get you hooked on "the mysteries". It's all too easy to take various bits of trustworthy information and stitch them together, filling the gaps with stuff you've made up based on a limited science education. ! Moderator Note I would take offense if I thought other members were mocking you. Please remember that part of the scientific methodology is removing unnecessary elements that might taint the findings of your experiments (there's nothing personal or mocking in correcting your use of common definitions). Ideas in science are meant to be reviewed with rigor to find their flaws, so please don't take replies helping you shore up the foundations of your idea as mockery. Isn't this why you came to a discussion site like this?

Thousands of hours thinking about a physical problem without taking much input from experts' and known facts normally end up being thousands of hours down the drain. It's actually a very bad symptom. You're trying to re-write hundreds of years of progress in science. Be careful with how much time you spend thinking on your own. The best physicists spend thousand upon thousands of hours studying (or using) physics they can claim no authorship of, and only tens of hours thinking of new ideas. Most physicists spend their lives skillfully using other people's theories. That's how it works. So it's the other way around. Thousands of hours of study culminate in tens of hours of inspiration at best. Something like that. Again, I'm trying to be helpful.

With TTL logic, any voltage between 2 and 5 volts is a "1", and anything from 0 to 0.8 volts is a "0". (the range in between is undefined). For CMOS, it is anything above 70% of the source voltage is a "1" and anything below 30% is a "0". You can have voltage and power usage even with a "0". Also, as pointed out in a previous post, loading is an issue. If an output from a logic gate is connected to too many inputs, those inputs can drag the output voltage down. Even if it is trying to output a "1", it may only be able to get the output voltage into the undefined region, or not even out of the "0" region. This is what buffers are for. They help keep the output in the "1" range when it needs to be, but they do so by drawing extra energy from the power source.

@MigL, competition confined to international sport and organized sports broadly have clear established rules which cannot be changed mid play and all participants are volunteers. If people who didn't want to participate in a hockey game were forced to and the rules of the game manipulatable by top players than it would absolutely be bullying. The Olympic games and FIFA worldcup are poor analogies. No one is entering those competitions who doesn't want to be there, has had time to prepare, conformations of what the rules will be, etc, etc. Rate Race of life itself is far less of a safe pace. The rules are dynamic and people are often forced to participate in ways they do not want to and aren't comfortable with.

I am sorry to learn that you have, apparently, not experienced the many positive aspects of competition. Many (probably most) of my friends, made in the business world, were either people within my company with whom I competed for promotion, or employees of rival companies with whom I competed for business. You seem to think competition and cooperation are mutally exclusive. This is certainly not my experience. Anyone who has particiapted in team sports would know this is not the case. A balanced personality will recognise when it is appropriate to compete and when to cooperate. And you completely fail to recognise that often the most important competition is with ourselves, striving to outdo what we have done heretofore. From my perspective you have a warped understanding of competition. I found "standing up to them", while it often lead to physical or metaphorical beatings, eventually defeated them, or - in some cases - 'converted' them. There is an element of the bully in all of us and the most effective solution will depened on the environment, the nature of the bully and the character of the bullied. Absolutes don't work here. As to

Competition means making yourself better. Bullying means making others worse. They are not equivalent. I'd rather play a competitive sport than run for office; but thanks anyway. Less life-long obesity for kids that way. And how would you know who's actually learned anything ? critical thinking does seem to be on the decline in the US. ( did you happen to see the RNC ??? ) It was competition with the Russians that spurred mankind to its greatest achievement; putting men on the moon. That can't be done today as there is no one to compete with ( yet ? ) Tesla brought out EVs in competition with gasoline powered vehicles. We already had GM and Ford; was EV research and secrets a waste ? Some of the greatest technological advances by mankind were achieved during the ultimate competition; war.

When domination is more important than sportsmanship, competition equals bullying. Bravo! Less life-long injury and overfocus on primitive toxic behavior. I'd vote for you. Another excellent suggestion. I watched a special about a school in Costa Rica where the students learn as they work on projects rather than memorize and take tests. Imagine approaching every subject as if it were a Science Fair! And given us several hundred companies, with several thousand designs, and wasted untold amounts of resources trying to keep their secrets from each other, all the while maintaining high profit. Cooperation is practically guaranteed to come up with a better mouse solution, and may not care about selling traps at all.

Personally I'd just go for a simple tree:

Well, I would rather say it is based on what society deems harmful which overlaps only imperfectly with things being harmful. There are plenty of laws that are actually harmful, but were not recognized as such, for example.