Phi for All

Thanks for bold underlining your goalpost move, but at a certain point, you need to acknowledge that any step in the right direction is a good step.

Seems like a trend these days for some lower information types to assert their more bizarre ideas rather than sound them out and try to support them. You may not see this the way I have, but our members are ALWAYS willing to discuss almost anything if it's done in good faith. The trend is rampant in US politics as well. The new conservatives aren't content with compromise. All or nothing has become the norm. If they can't have their way, they want to knock the board over because the game must be rigged. Discussion isn't possible when one side has no means of being persuaded. In science discussion, evidential support is what makes us nod and say, "Go on...." If a new member can't provide any, are we supposed to keep talking about their idea? If we point out their mistakes based on our best current explanations and they ignore us, is there anything to learn? The point is discussing science. It's often plodding and boring to those who don't collect knowledge. I'm not going to apologize for it. We've lost some folks this last year, hopefully not to COVID-19, but because the virus made their expertise suddenly indispensable. We wish those folks the very best. We hope they can come back online and tell us about their experiences. Do well, as in more traffic? We could allow more crap, and that would attract more crappers. Do well, ala PhysicsForums membership size? They're even tougher on newbies, are huge because of advertisements, and don't allow speculation at all. Do well, as in be more rigorous and strive for more accuracy? We choose this. If we could gain another couple hundred members who're serious about mainstream science, this is what we want. We'll keep striving on a volunteer basis.

! Moderator Note You can't use your own non-mainstream work as evidence to support your own non-mainstream ideas. I'm moving this thread to Speculations, where you need to support your concept using mainstream science and valid reasoning. You should start by giving us an overview of the idea, since people need to be able to participate without going offsite or downloading anything.

We all tend to focus on what stimulates us. Low-information people are bored by facts and data, and prefer emotionally charged stances they can passionately embrace. Nerds love knowing things, and prefer the depth and nuance that more accurate information gives them. Nerds get bored with unfounded claims and bad reasoning (if they're repeated after the nerds have nitpicked them rigorously).

I think part of "nerdism" goes beyond enjoying intellectual pursuits. There is a tighter focus on knowledge, sure, but also a broader view of life in general. I'd say most nerds, even though there may be some social anxiety present, tend to have a more inclusive worldview, and understand better how individuals work to help their societies. If you simplify behavior down to compete or cooperate, nerds seems like the better cooperative operators.

Non-AcademicMadeADiscovery has been banned for posting sensitive medical study data in violation of rule 2.3.

! Moderator Note < cut to Musak version of The Girl from Ipanema >

The most reasonable explanation is the US military making it all up in order to keep appropriations focused on support against this potential threat. It would also explain how this technology is supposed to exist but nobody has used it to gain the upper hand in the last several decades. Maybe the technology is more about making radar see things that aren't true. But then you have those pesky eyewitnesses.

It could be aliens, in which case, as the article points out, this hang-back-and-observe approach is a LOT more preferable than the Spanish Conquistador approach, and could suggest they aren't violent. It could be the US military, pretending not to know what's going on as a security measure. Not likely, but not a huge risk either. We'd certainly forgive them if it meant strategic aerial dominance. And they don't seem to be using the technology in an unethical way.... It could be someone else's military, which is where the scary comes in. There are a few contenders, but normally building something like an aircraft capable of the stunts some of these UFOs pull is more difficult to hide than the planes themselves. Our satellites are pretty good at showing what foreign facilities do. Again though, the technology isn't being used violently. It could be a private company, which is also scary, just because of the wealth and focus private enterprise can bring to bear. Private interests are usually profit oriented, and other than selling to the military, what profit is there in aircraft that run circles around what the military has? Or it could be non-human but still from Earth, the most unlikely. A non-technological flyer we've never found evidence of. It reminds me of the joke about the three-legged chicken, raised for the extra drumstick, but nobody knew what they taste like because nobody could catch one.

! Moderator Note Mainstream science is our best current explanation for various phenomena, and you haven't responded with any, even after being asked to support your ideas. So this thread is closed, and don't bring it up again. Perhaps you should learn to ask more questions, instead of making things up?

I would question any judgement that only took one side of the equation into account. Again, if the alternative to "feeling like a sedated zombie" is "not being able to trust that I'm not a danger to myself and others", would that change how you feel about using the medication?

Whose idea was this? Who are all these people? What in the world?

I'm afraid that's EXACTLY what you have to be. An educated doctor has to balance efficacy with his patient's needs. The same meds might help two different people equally, but patient A is worried about an associated weight gain, even more so than his psychoses. Helping patient A's mental state is the goal, and there are a ton of factors to consider. Also, your definition of "worse" probably isn't a medical one. Is it worse to be zonked out on medications or lucid but violent? Doctors don't always have the same criteria for what poses a "problem" that their patients do. All that said, money does have an impact on medicine that is decidedly non-medical. Ideally, healthcare shouldn't be a for-profit venture, since the capitalist models often conflict with what's best for a patient. But your idea for lab folks to take the medicines they make sounds like a rant. I suppose if they actually needed the meds it might work, but how do you know they aren't taking them already? Can you take antipsychotic medication safely if you don't need it, just to see how it makes you feel?

! Moderator Note You need to stop trolling your own thread and explain what you mean. You started with musical notes and now you're compounding your mistakes with light. Discuss some mainstream science or the thread will be closed.

There must be something about the phrase that makes it a trigger for curiosity. Successful clickbait lures get used repeatedly. I think the spammers are hoping we want to know about issues and their solutions.

That usually means "things other than science". Or the supernatural, to which science can't be applied, by definition.

I suppose if they behave that way in order to enforce the laws, they aren't being typically competitive, and they aren't exactly raging either. There are those who think being in the fast lane on a three-lane highway at 55 mph is legal and reasonable behavior simply because they aren't exiting for quite a while. I could be wrong, but are these the situations that cause people to "rage" on the road? Or am I setting the bar too high for driving anger by excluding instances where rude gestures are the extent of the reaction?

But if they aren't driving competitively then they aren't a problem. Are you singling out drivers who aren't aware that their habits are dangerous and annoying? I can't picture someone who is causing a lot of brake lights behind them being "not competitive". I'm not saying the competitive driver is always angry, just that driving anger seems to center around the competitive driver and their behavior. Sometimes I think the anger at other drivers is at least an attempt to justify the dangerous behavior. It's actually worse when the asshat is having a great time weaving in and out of traffic, but making everyone else miserable.

What I said was all the anger normally generated by driving seems centered around competitive drivers and their behavior. They're usually mad at others, and their tactics to resolve their anger result in normally passive drivers getting angry at THEM. What else is there to get angry about? I suppose one could argue there are technical malfunctions that can cause driving anger (mechanical failures in vehicles, signaling systems, road worthiness), but the kind of anger the OP is interested in seems to involve interactions between people.

They're usually angry at the slower drivers who're obeying the rules. When they cut in front of others to gain position, they cause brake lights to drain energy from the whole traffic system, and provoke anger in drivers who would otherwise be calm and cooperative in general. I say ALL because if driving should be cooperative, then what else is there to get angry about, other than selfish, unpredictable, risk-it-all-to-get-ahead-of-you asshats who fancy themselves great drivers?

I think far too many people compete while driving when they should cooperate. I think the folks who're always trying to get to the head of the pack are responsible for ALL the road rage, since they're usually angry at slower drivers plus they anger others with the stress they cause in traffic.

Which theories? Which pitfalls? Most theories have areas of applicability, and outside them a different theory is needed. Newton works well up until you need Einstein, right? Theories are best current explanations, but many are like a small bath towel that does a good job of covering an area, but not all the areas you'd like it to cover.

I thought that, with the Q, it was all about whether humans are capable of evolving beyond their primitive perspectives. It's not about the destination (mapping), it's about the journey (growing).

Temperature is another measurable (thermal) property of matter, yet not something physical you can hand me a cup of. Technical in that you can't separate the flame from what's on fire. Try to remove the flame and you destroy the situation that allowed the event to happen in the first place. But I don't think this line of reasoning is helping you see why space itself is NOT a physical thing.

It helped me to understand the difference between a physical object and an event, like fire or lightning. You can hand me a cup of something ON fire, but not the fire itself, even though fire has several aspects that can be measured independently.