Phi for All

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.

! Moderator Note And once again we see zero support for an aether. No meaningful scientific discussion can happen about an idea without evidence in support. If "proving God" is now your goal, it's so far removed from your OP as to be a completely different topic (which you'll also need support for on this site). This thread is closed, please don't bring it up again.

If they haven't been able to communicate at all in 5000 years, they probably wouldn't be able to understand each other now. This could be an interesting plot point, because now they both have to go back through their records to find a common tongue (circa, I don't know, early 21st century Earth?). The power of evolution in fiction is creating some kind of pressure that would cause a certain trait to be selected for that you, as the author, want the humans to have. One group has webbed fingers and toes because the cataclysm forced the population into the oceans hundreds of generations ago, for instance. Behavior, again, is something you can influence as the writer. Have something occur that causes a population to behave predominantly in a certain way, and you can "imagineer" the kind of society you need for your story. Even for hard science-fiction, if you give us a reasonable scenario to explain why people are the way they are, several hundred generations of changes in allele frequency and some cataclysmic selective pressures can create a not-insignificantly changed population.

Are you referring to your mischaracterization of "law" as swansont used it? Remember when you called it "ambiguous"? It's the only thing I've offered any argument about, and you seem extremely reluctant to focus on that. You're almost... rigid in your need to sweep it under the rug, as it were.

No, it's not ad hominem. If I tried to argue that we shouldn't consider your position because of your personality, or your behavior in other threads, THAT would be ad hom. I argued against your particular abuse of "law" without any personal conclusions. The remark about the competence studies was merely a side observation.

"I think you meant to say 'baseball" instead of 'ball', because, of course, there are many balls that have nothing to do with baseball." Actually, it seems like an EXACT match. But I understand your reluctance to admit it.

Sure I can, since it's easily demonstrable that context in a discussion is the responsibility of all parties. If you asked me for an answer to a question about baseball, and I told you "if the ball is caught by an opposing player, the hitter is 'out'", the context should be understood by all. What you did with swansont was the equivalent of telling me, "You should have said 'baseball' instead of ball, because you could be talking about any of the other kinds of balls". But you helped set the context with your initial question, which was specifically about baseball, and no other kind of "ball" sport. Now, of course, you're just making it worse by doubling down on this ineffective approach to learning. Lots of ranting, no science discussion, no learning.

These are actually better frozen. Put them on a stick, lick them a couple of times, then throw them away and eat the stick. Good fiber.

You created the context with your original question, which asked for a physics answer. To pretend otherwise is more intellectual dishonesty. Your arguments are consistently specious, and you seem more interested in airing resentments than in learning anything. It's a real shame. This makes it look like you have a big chip on your shoulder wrt those who understand things you don't. You also seem to argue very much like the participants in the Dunning-Kruger studies, who showed a marked tendency to overestimate their own abilities and knowledge.

So a working physicist answers your question, "How would you refer to the dynamics of thermal systems? Laws? Forces? Rules? Theories?", and when he makes a clarification about "laws", you think he was being "ambiguous", and may have been talking about a non-scientific definition of "laws"?! That's the most intellectually dishonest stance I've heard from you today.

The part where the cat jumps through the paper-covered hoop must've been tough. Cats don't usually eat what they can't smell, and don't jump when they can't see the landing. They do gain confidence over time, but a "leap of faith" seems beyond them (unless there were holes in the paper the audience couldn't see but the cat could use to make out the landing spot?). Once they see it's OK they can repeat it, but the first time through the paper has got to be difficult.

! Moderator Note Wow. That's a LOT of bad faith arguments there. You wasted a LOT of time on that. Thread closed. Don't bring it up again.

! Moderator Note If you think you're being mocked, as opposed to having your non-mainstream ideas attacked, please use the Report Post function. Members are allowed to attack ideas, but not the people who have them. This is an important distinction, and dovetails well with our rules on civility.

! Moderator Note This is unacceptable. If you don't understand the question, like studiot, you can ask for clarification. I'm sure you'll get a more reasonable treatment. If you can't explain your idea and answer questions about it in a civil manner, we're done here. It's all up to YOU, Mitko Gorgiev. Do better or I'll close this.

! Moderator Note Then you'll need some kind of overview, or I can lock the thread while you put the evidence together. Otherwise, there's no science to discuss.