Phi for All

! Moderator Note NO!

Alex Mercer has been suspended for a month for an unforgivable violation of our civility rules. If he comes back, he'll be in the mod queue.

There's a scientific term for this, what is it? Oh yeah, chicken-shit weasel. Remember when they were screaming about ad homs? Good times.

We can be mindful of the distinctions between "beliefs". Are they based on faith, where belief is extremely strong but purposely avoids reason and critical thinking? Or are they based on hope, where belief is less strong, but the reasoning is little more than wishful thinking? Or are they based on trust, and trustworthy information, carefully tested and determined to be worth that trust?

With only two major political parties, corporations probably have a better chance of representing Americans on specific stances. I would applaud any major company that announced they would no longer support candidates using fascist tactics like the 50 Republicans above. Pepsi should denounce Mitch McConnel and FOX News for their hypocrisy in wondering why more Americans won't get vaccinated. And wouldn't it be great if Wal-Mart or Amazon stopped donating to Q-Anon candidates, and instead called for some reasonableness?

???

Finally, someone who isn't from one of those obnoxious essay writing companies that spam us all the time!

You need to watch each of those movies again, start to finish (with all the bonus features), then come back and tell us if movement has caused them to malfunction. Gather evidence, please.

Kinetics may be the answer. When I search for "rail guns", Amazon cleverly changes it to "gun rails". Be afraid, internet!

Being able to use reason to discuss various scientific phenomena requires an arena where that reason is respected. True personal attacks show me that the attacker has reached the limits of their reasoning power, and have resorted to lashing out emotionally. I've been exposed to some fantastic discussions in the time I've been here, and the common vein running through all of them was critical thinking and knowledge winning out over fallacies and ignorance, and members who are eager to practice civility and learn as opposed to just being right.

Now I'm getting ads from Amazon for "phased plasma rifles". The internet can't be aware if it's willing to arm us like this.

Good. Do yourself a huge favor then, and focus study on fields so you understand more about the research we already do. You're assuming the research necessary isn't being done. Remember that much of what you don't know relies on how much you understand. Focusing on learning as much as you can will help you avoid learning a little bit and guessing at the rest. Other than the 1:1 ratio of time travel we observe, it sounds like you can safely cross this off your list of concerns then. You have more important things to focus on. You should choose a better term than "belief" for things you can't possibly know the answer to. You aren't doing science if you're firmly convinced you're right about guesswork. I believe you say this because you have not understood the λCDM model it's based on. I think you're making the mistake of assuming something is wrong because it's not easily intuited. The universe has no obligation to make sense. This is hard stuff, and it requires focused study. These are not familiar terms. What do you mean by them? You can't find it by dismissing accumulated mainstream physics knowledge. If you don't understand something, it's MUCH better to ask questions than to make stuff up based on a lack of understanding.

You have that poster somewhere in your house, I just know it. Don't count Tom out though. Have you ever seen what an atomic physicist can do with a Breville BTA830XL Die-Cast 4-slice long-slot toaster? "Come with me, if you want to eat toast!"

! Moderator Note Are you proposing some kind of behavior or phenomenon? This is more opinion and guesswork than a Speculation you have to support. I can move this to Politics if you want to discuss the impact there, or Religion if you'd prefer that.

Holmes is suspended for three days. And now Holmes has been banned, obviously at the limits of their reasoning abilities. We wish them luck elsewhere.

! Moderator Note Well, I think you know by now that's a personal attack, since it's clear you aren't supporting the statement with any rigor. Why don't you take a nice break, get something to eat, and get the chip off your shoulder. You're making all of this far too personal.

! Moderator Note Posts on personal attacks split to their own thread in Suggestions, Comments and Support.

! Moderator Note Spilt to its own thread in Suggestions....

! Moderator Note This isn't the post you reported. It's not the post I commented on. Your behavior is fair game as well. If you act like your opinion is the only one that matters, it's not a personal attack to point that out. It's something you can change, not something that's intrinsic to your entire being. I usually leave the members to hash out their own discussions, but mods respond to reported posts. It's part of the protocols we're paid so handsomely to follow.

! Moderator Note Again, this is not what's happening. Your stances, your arguments, the things you claim are all fair game. We attack ideas ruthlessly, to make sure they can survive. We don't attack people. YOU ARE NOT YOUR IDEAS.

! Moderator Note To clarify this reported post, we've debated at length on this in the past. Pointing out a lack of knowledge is NOT an insult, it's NOT a personal attack, and it doesn't violate our civility rules. We're all here to learn. Calling a specific lack of knowledge "ignorance" is accurate. Care must be taken to properly highlight the lack, of course. When calling someone "ignorant", the implication is that we're focused on a specific lack of knowledge, something one is "ignorant" of, and NOT judging the whole person that way. Perhaps this is where the friction lies. People can do and say stupid/dumb/ignorant/moronic things, but for the purposes of our discussions, nobody is an idiot or a moron. The whole person isn't ignorant.

This is actually what you're doing now. Have you been able to take any of the comments on board, and adjust your hypothesis accordingly? A representation of what an odderon particle might look like reminds you of a toy you're familiar with, so it seems like a pattern to you, but it's not.

Perhaps that's the problem. "Reality" is a horribly subjective choice of words for what you're describing. Science makes observations about the natural world. What we see in nature. You can decide for yourself if that involves "reality".

My claim has evidence to back it up. The perception doesn't match natural observation and measurement. Your claim that this perception is real has only subjective confirmation.

You're an atomic fountain of information! But in the case of the person under anasthesia, their perception is NOT real. What allows you to cherry pick one situation over another?