A Tripolation

And what purpose does this hold? Honestly. People that are actually working on new hypotheses and models almost always tend to already be engaged in academic research of some kind. How often are the threads in the Speculations forum anything except someone with a tad bit of knowledge thinking that they've overturned the Second Law of Thermo or solved quantum gravity? How often do solid ideas come from "outsiders?" The days of when someone could be a lawyer (Fermat) and a practicing scientist/mathematician that still produces active research are over.

Obama. I consider myself conservative, but Romney lies too much, is too rich, and can't imagine what life is like for lower-income people. I don't think his foreign policies are good at all. He wouldn't make a good president, in my opinion. I don't think he's a bad guy or anything like that. I just think he's too...not...presidential? If that makes sense.

If I understood your post correctly, the only philosophy that matters is epistemology and ontology (of which physics is the best). This sounds an awful lot like the scientific method to me. Correct me if I'm wrong. (And a mod can nudge me if I'm off-topic. I always have a hard time discerning what on-topic means in the philosophy forum.)

Learn how to use quote marks and maybe some day a woman will actually love you.

If by "work," you mean "trying to quell the flow of women fighting to give me their numbers and prioritize them in order of hotness," yes. You're right. I should get back to work.

Isn't r/foreveralone missing their moderator?

My advice: Just ask her out. There's a tactic that I like, that is usually successful, where you kind of tell the woman (not ask) that she is going to accompany you somewhere. And that she'll love it. But you have to get the right tone, otherwise you'll just come across as an arrogant jerk. Or unfunny. Both of those are bad. My perspective: If she's a nerd, and a senior, she is most likely headed towards college. Almost all high school relationships do not survive the transition to college. I would be exceedingly wary about this if I were you. Uni changes people.

My main issue is that allowing possession of any CP (and for future reference, whenever I say child porn, I mean pedophilic porn, not teenagers sexting each other. Seven-year olds being raped is what I'm referring to) only allows for loopholes and exploitations of the law. An outright ban is the right course. Also, all CP does have a victim. And viewing it does indeed further the propagation of it. To deny this is to deny the fundamentals of every supply-demand framework that exists.

No. I'm doing it ironically. That's the point. I hate ydoaPs. I upvote him and I die a little on the inside. It's like Hardcore-mode for teh interblagz.

My fault. I'm upvoting everyone in this thread that isn't you, simply for the virtue of them not being you. It's how I troll.

So this is a quote. You already know how to do this, it seems. What I usually do is hit the "Reply" button and then inject my own ending quote tags when I want to address a point. Like so: (left bracket) quote (right bracket) text I am addressing (left bracket) /quote (right bracket) It looks like this: It's basically simple HTML tags. Make sense? You're also being attacked by a moderately conservative theist. And I'd wager (aside from our European friends), that most of us here are moderates. I don't think many true liberals exist in the US.

That's what I keep telling you. This warp drive isn't one that implements exotic matter. It says the rings would potentially be made of them. I think that they can do modded experiments that have the same effect, since it would be on a much smaller scale, without the use of exotic matter.

I bet Venus blew his mind.

In my opinion, you can't work hard unless your job is one of intense physical labor. Sure, you might have an important job. Do a lot of stuff. But work hard? Nah. Falling into bed after 19 hours of straight tobacco labor is "a hard day's work." Not falling into bed after a 10-hour shift in an air-conditioned office. I would never consider anything you could possibly do as "hard work." Ooooooooooooo. I am so GLAD you said this. So we've already cleared the fact that my father works hard, right? So, according to you, my quality of life would've improved and I would've gotten opportunities because of his hard work, right? Did that happen? Nope. My father instilled a work ethic in me that allowed me to have a solid GPA in high school. I scored incredibly high on the administered standardized tests in every section, particularly the mathematics and sciences. According to you, I should have had opportunity-palooza! But I didn't. The scholarships I was offered only covered tuition. My family couldn't afford to pay the rest. They couldn't shell out money for books, a laptop, meal plan, etc, because they were below the poverty level. I wasn't going to school. Enter the government: I was offered Pell Grants, state financial aid, and federal aid accorded to me due to my background from living in a very impoverished region *and* being a minority. And other wonderful measures thanks to "dirty socialism" that the conservatives are now so Hell-bent on repealing. I could finally attend college. My father certainly tried. But it wasn't enough. Luckily for me, the government stepped in and ensured that I would be able to attend uni and receive a physics degree. And, thanks to their further intervention, grad school awaits in the future. Sometimes, it doesn't matter how hard a person works. Sometimes, all the cards are stacked against them. Sometimes, people just need to be helped up from the dirt. This is the simple logic no conservative seems to understand.

My father used to work 120 hours a week on the family farm so that it wouldn't go under. He turned down an electrical engineering job offer from IBM because of his sense of duty to his family. I doubt you've ever done true, backbreaking physical labor like the kind I was raised around. So do not preach to people about what true labor is. You do not know. And yes, I do know that for certain. I can tell by the arrogance of your posts and how dismissive you are of the plight of the less fortunate. You are cold and elitist. If people were paid for the amount of work they actually did, my family would be worth billions of dollars thanks to my father. We are not. We are still technically classified at the "below poverty" level for a family of five. Your posts reek of a complete misunderstanding of life and what low-income work actually is. Quite frankly, it's nauseating.

Funny. That seems to be the religion I practice. Or is this another one of the whole "nothing really exists because Descarte" philosophy ploys?

That, in most cases, GR turns into Newtonian gravity. Just as SR turns into Newtonian motion at low speeds.

I thought it was as well, iNow.

At the risk of bringing down the mod-wrath for being off-topic, allow me to say this: The Doctor is one of the most morally deranged beings I've ever seen. No second chances. When provoked, The Doctor retaliates with overwhelming force, a la Ender's Game. Who is he to hold everyone else to his standards? Why is he the arbitrator of justice. He does what he wants, when he wants. He is vain, selfish, hedonistic, and amoral until morality suits him. On-Topic: As a Christian, I would like to say that religion prevents people from being immoral. But it doesn't. I think that the world would be pretty much the same, except a tad more scientifically advanced.

This question is posed a lot. What would it take for a being to convince me that it is God? Several things. First, it would have to tell me my inner-most thoughts and desires, and show me every instance where I failed as a Christian/Humanist. It would then have to show me a miracle of some kind. I would deem instantaneous travel to an exploding star, the halt of the exploding star, and the safe return, evidence enough. Yes, that could conceivably be faked by an advanced civilization. The last (and possibly only valid) test would be for this being to grant me his godhood. God could make another being God. I would want a cosmic-level sentience. Omniscience, in a way. The ability to know, beyond any doubt, that this being before me was God. I would want to know why 'evil' existed, why this being felt the need to be so reclusive, etc. So, while an advanced civilization could fake most tests of deism, only the true god could prove, beyond a doubt, that it was God. That would flow from omnipotence. Only God could grant the ability to PROVE something to be 100% true. No Descartian philosophy, no uncertainty. God alone would have that ability. And the whole "well, a really advanced race could trick you into thinking that" argument does not work. I would know that it was the real deal from the actual godhood. I hope that line of thinking makes sense.

This always draws my ire a little bit. As far as I know, no conclusive research has been offered to show that HFCS is any more dangerous than other forms of sucrose. I mean...one comes from sugarcane, the other comes from corn. They are the same thing. But now, there's this movement to demonize HFCS. It's a sweetener. Of course it's not healthy in large quantities. Guess what else isn't healthy in large quantities? Regular sugar. I would be more than willing to read articles that show, conclusively, how HFCS is a dangerous ingredient. Dangerous enough to warrant a conscious avoidance, to be more precise.

Untrue on all accounts. Industry standards are fairly rigorous. I've never been to a slaughterhouse where any of that took place, nor are there any good reasons to do the things you describe. Can you list some? The chemical energy used in combustion energies sits at around 35%. That's not a good reason to abandon cars, nor is it a good reason to stop eating meat. No, it doesn't. This is even less true of small-farms, where cattle graze on slopes, in wooded areas, and other human-inaccessible areas. From your link: The article is clearly biased and skews the conclusions from the actual research. If all farmers went organic, the world would starve. This is a logistics problem. Organic farming is actually quite selfish. Grass-fed? What does he think we feed cattle at feed lots? They are fed diets consisting of feed/silage, both of which are plant products. Cattle graze on...grass. I do endorse freed-range, but I know that it is not tenable from the amount of meat the US consumes. I am all for reduction of meat-consumption and to make a move towards all free-range farms. I detest factory farms. But the author does not take into consideration the considerable cost in infrastructure that this would entail. Antibiotics are not used as much as described. I can't speak for factory farms and their practices, but on small-farms (1000 or less head of cattle), antibiotics are only used when necessary. And it seems to me to be an irresponsible farmer who would let his cow die a slow, painful death from an infection when antibiotics could easily cure her. All in all, we should seek to reduce our meat-consumption. But the methods advocated by vegetarians/vegans are almost always ridiculous. This probably comes from them never having set foot on a real farm in their entire life.

While your thoughts are laudable, these things are not as simply taught as you might believe. It's not a matter of offering them. It takes a certain level of mathematical maturity to teach things as complicated as algebra and physics. And if you want to teach proper math and physics (as opposed to "here's the algorithm, now plug-and-chug"), then that takes a much higher level of thought patterns than your typical eighth-grader possesses.

But your post does violate mainstream physics. There is no "point NOW" across the universe. Time is a local variable. Saying it isn't goes against special relativity. And a dimension is simply a mathematical indice that we use to specify a particle's true location/movement in given framework. (x, y, z, t) is really no different than (t, x, y, z) as long as you are not simply transposing the values. This is the problem I have with your post. I can barely discern what that means. In cosmology, the scientists use very precise terms and maths to show exactly what they mean. I understand that you're a self-described laymen, but it would be beneficial to the rest of us if you took more care in wording your post. Even a diagram made in MSPaint can be helpful. And then we can see where you might be going astray and help you understand why your idea might not be right. From what I can tell, it's not right because it's pulling a lot of stuff from random places. A lot of "what-if's" and "maybe that happens's." These aren't necessarily bad qualities, but they do not belong in cosmology. It's not my intention to be condescending;I would simply like to help explain our side of the story so that we may open up a meaningful dialogue in the subject.

I said that in my post, Mooey. I just don't think that he was as invincible as everyone claimed, nor do I think that concealed-and-carry is reckless behavior.