Phi for All

Is there any evidence to support your thoughts? Remember, you're trying to persuade us that your explanation has merit. Right now it's just one long sentence about your opinion. Focus on one part and try to find evidence that will support your idea.

So all things that possess neurons are conscious? I told you, stretching definitions too far dilutes them into meaninglessness. I really think, if you're going to include humans in this, you should focus on human consciousness. Our brains are different, our capacity for knowledge and learning is different, and that has to affect this concept you're trying to define. Trying to draw similarities between humans and insects with regard to thinking is futile, imo.

No definition of consciousness that includes bees is going to be useful to humans, imo. Stretching it to fit is a mistake. Frankly, I can't think of a definition of consciousness in humans that would be meaningful to us. Are we all automatically conscious because we're human? Are we distinguishing between consciousness and sentience? I have noticed there seems to be a minimum threshold on a combination of intelligence/education/experience, such that you need to know a certain amount before you can even hope to know more. It's that moment for many when "the light bulb comes on", when "things just click", and the human brain suddenly has enough "smarts" to keep it curious and thriving. Some humans never seem to meet this threshold, where your own (consciousness?) becomes self-sustaining and capable of dynamic growth.

And this is where Trurl's argument about genius really falls down. Both these billionaires have lost tons of money through dumb decisions, yet they retain their "genius" status with many just because they're still billionaires. The fact that they could be MUCH richer if they just stopped destroying themselves on social media escapes many people. Both have the bad habit of doubling down on bad decisions. Musk has already lost more money than any other billionaire this year, due to TFG's tariffs. Since they're still together, FElon must be looking at a different bonus, probably feeding his xA all the juicy .gov data he's been Hoovering up. As someone mentioned earlier, both are really good at using their wealth to con people.

Are you talking about charge? What's an "electric particle"? Atoms definitely have electrons, if that's what you're referring to. Gosh, it would be great if there were fixed definitions for these scientific explanations, so we could understand each other without making up words. Fire is an event, not a thing by itself. Similarly, electro-chemical reactions also require very precise conditions before they can happen, but once those conditions are met, they can't NOT happen. Also, if electricity is produced from a chemical, the atoms have electrons. Do you recognize electrons as being "an electrical particle"? In mainstream physics, electrons are both particles AND waves.

The only way to accumulate this much wealth is to steal it from your workers. Pay them far less than the work is worth, deny them raises, threaten mass firings to keep workers afraid, tie their health insurance to their workplace, aim your processes at hiring younger workers who won't get paid as much, and above all, keep your workers poor so they can't afford to go anywhere else. In 1965, the average CEO pay was 27 times the average worker pay. Today, mainly because of the practices the billionaires have implemented, the average CEO makes 670 times what the average worker makes. That's a number that shouldn't have changed significantly if workers were being compensated fairly.

The first objection I have is that you treat energy as a thing that can be separated from an object, instead of treating it as a property of a thing. This doesn't work in any physics. Can you pour me a cup of energy? You make assumptions, like "An object can only be written if it has a name". I can write down a water molecule without calling it a water molecule (H2O). AFAIK, real-time deals with processes. I couldn't find where you describe how photons traveling at c is a process. Can you support with evidence (not just claims) that light is a process?

Money. I think you're equating being rich with being smart. And viewing him as a stereotype deflects from his behavior. I think you give him too much leeway because you think of him as a "genius", and the worst you can say about him is that he's like Bond villain. You know who also wants control who isn't a stereotype? Nazis. Fascists. Republicans. "Proves" he's a genius, are you serious? It proves he's a liar and a fraud, convincing idiots that looking down from the top to find corruption is a good thing, when most of the corruption, the swamp if you will, is at the top where he's perched. Even you couch them as "claims", like you know it's not going to work. This administration knows NOTHING about lowering the deficit, if you judge by past behavior. In fact, TFG set records for the biggest deficit in a single term. What makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER is putting billionaires in government leadership. There's no bigger conflict of interest for a free market democracy. Billionaires (all of them) have used their wealth to manipulate the system in their favor, allowing their money to do things it shouldn't be able to, like buying political favor. I've used this analogy before, but if you were paid a dollar every second from the time you're born ($60/minute, $3600/hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year), it would take less than 12 days for you to become a millionaire. But at that same rate, it takes almost 32 YEARS to become a billionaire. Billionaires have rigged the system, and it needs to stop quickly if future Americans are to avoid slave labor for one of FElon's companies.

You've expended a LOT of effort trying to redefine physics. What bothered you about the mainstream approach to these phenomena? What didn't you understand that made you make up all of this?

Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, the co-founders of Tesla, designed that first sexy roadster that blew the doors off of just about everything else outside a racetrack. Most notably, neither are Nazis.

Rattling a NATO member like Denmark, causing them to spend resources to deal with his threats, and sewing discord among other allies seems more likely to me than an actual invasion. I think this issues splits his supporters, and he hasn't done much to sell the concept to anyone. The military certainly isn't keen on invading Greenland.

He represents the soul of fascism. He wants control of whole industries with the State's backing, so prices go up beyond the grasp of most people, forcing them to become workers for the company in order to get by. He wants what the other oligarchs want, for money to be the most important thing you can have in terms of power over others. Oh, and he's Nazi. F Elon.

Claiming Zelensky is unpopular when recent polling shows otherwise supports the Russian position. I'm not thinking for you, but you don't appear to be thinking at all. If you hate the Russians so much, who better than Zelensky to stand up to them?

Then you're in the minority of Ukrainians in your dislike of Zelensky, and what you claimed earlier is still wrong, and supports the Russians you claim to hate.

Get out of here. He has a 57% approval rate, you Russian shill. https://thehill.com/policy/international/5153509-trump-attacks-ukrainian-president-zelensky-approval/