Phi for All

We always have to remember that puppies have instincts the toddlers don't. A puppy will freeze when mama bites its head as a warning for intolerable behavior. A toddler resists, so mama dog bites harder to make her point, which makes the child resist harder. Bad wiring going on there.

Dachsund's are built for using the keyboard. Maybe we should call the Australian authorities and have them check on beecee?

Win what though? For companionship, both dogs and cats have their place, but you can't really compare them. Their overall demeanor is completely different, and both offer different kinds of comfort. I've had both, and love them for different reasons. There is something about a cat's independence that makes it more significant when they approach you for attention. Dogs are VERY focused on what's going on with the pack, and more trainable because of it, imo. We expect dogs to do as they're told, and can rely on them for actual work, but for those who just want a companion, it's hard to pass up the purr.

! Moderator Note Which now has its own thread here.

The energy and matter were all there, in densities and temperatures we're able to evaluate once they aren't infinite. Technically, the space is there as well, waiting to expand. And you're only assuming time begins at t=0. We can't know that time existed or not before that. The maths in the LCDM model disagree with you, in other words. You're incorrect about their mathematically expressible value.

VenusPrincess has been suspended for two weeks for continued abusive behavior in discussion. If you can't attack the ideas, don't attack the people.

! Moderator Note And this will NEVER be an appropriate response on this forum. Your lack of civility is unacceptable, but this is over the top. Goodbye.

! Moderator Note This is far from acceptable for this section, and the entire site. Don't EVER try to post things like this here again. This is a science discussion forum.

Flying cars could only be used by the general public if they were automated, and if you're going to have automated transportation, there are much more efficient means than flying individual vehicles.

No offense, but that's some mangled reasoning there. The videos aren't what's important here, the knowledge is. Reading is faster, and you have a better chance at picking up flaws and misunderstandings from the written word. And NOBODY said anything about not having time to research online, you just made that up as an easy thing to knock down. Again, no offense, but I can't help but think you've been booted from so many forums that you now tend to show up and throw up EVERYTHING you want to talk about all at once, since you suspect you won't have long at any one site. Can I make a suggestion? Before your attitude gets you a bunch more negative rep points for rudeness and snobbery, how about you pick JUST ONE of the things you'd like to talk about, start a new thread on it, give a brief opening post to start us out, and encourage some conversation about it, rather than trying to climb a box with a megaphone? I think you'll be amazed at the difference in the responses. Many people here have proposed many of your individual points.

We can NOT predict the physical state of the universe at t=0. When we try, the densities and temperatures become infinite, which is usually an answer that tells us our maths have failed.

Other major errors: too many points of discussion for a single thread. Much better to pick a single one and drill down, that way you avoid a rant and you get some meaningful response. How does one respond to so much opinion? I like opinion in small bites, and this OP makes me choke. Also, the videos are a BIG mistake. Nobody has time for that, and why would I want to come here to watch videos? This is a science discussion forum, and what makes it interesting is the member's perspective. I want them to talk about what they mean, not a bunch of videos to say, "This is what I'm talking about". As John Cuthber points out, rants can be valid, but I think they also obscure a lot of meaningful points that can be drawn out through a simple conversation. This is a round table, not a podium in front of an auditorium.

It can be suspended in a liquid easily, but not converted. I always wondered about that. Most sources claim some extra vD makes us store the calcium better, and many folks don't get as much sun as they used to. Tums should really add some vitamin D, imo. That's not me prescribing anything for anybody, though. It looks like the Tums Smoothies product has calcium carbonate (750 mg) as well as elemental calcium (300 mg) to address deficiencies. Since these are over-the-counter, if you do have a documented vitamin deficiency, you should check with your doctor to make sure this doesn't conflict with any protocols they may have in place for you.

Know yourself. The rest can be learned. Your perspective and reasoning are valuable here, so I hope you can find some bandwidth and keep us up to date on yourself. Thanks very much for all the learning!

Argument from Incredulity is extremely weak, and always a good sign that you need to dig deeper for supportive evidence. It sounds like you equate the hardness of the pills with their ability to strengthen your bones, which is an unreasonable bias on your part. Calcium performs its role wrt bone support without requiring specific delivery methods. Tums, for instance, are chewable, so they're supposed to be broken down before being swallowed. IIRC, calcium is absorbed by stomach acids anyway. Vitamin D helps with absorption as well, which you're probably getting from your smoothie.

! Moderator Note This isn't what Speculations is for. It's not for guesswork. When you have more than guesses and can support your assertions with science, you can open this again in a more rigorous approach.

! Moderator Note We have a section for non-mainstream speculations. What you've done here is hijack someone else's thread with your own pet concept, and that's against the rules. If you're willing to support your hypothesis with evidence, I can split this off into it's own thread. You'd also have to defend this concept of design as well, which seems unsupportable without some kind of magic or religion or other supernatural means.

Singling out professors seems like you're labeling a whole group of people based on the behavior of some of them. IOW, discrimination. Also, you base your appraisal of their intentions and motivations on a LOT of assumptions. Are you reading minds to get all that info about why they do the things they do?

! Moderator Note Once again, you've set up a discussion with bizarre parameters that assumes some kind of homogeneity among high schools you've failed to establish. The scenario you set forth is going to meet with such varied responses that it's meaningless trying to discuss them all. A large spectrum of responses should be expected. Please establish a better opening post next time, something that might lend reason and value to the conversation so you don't have to ask others for it.

! Moderator Note Moved from The Lounge.

They really aren't a homogenous group you can stereotype that way. Do you know what a spectrum is? We're all on many of them, about many things. This particular spectrum you're poking at goes from unemployable at one end to founding Facebook at the other. So your question is fairly meaningless, sorry to say, since the answers to it don't support the correlation you thought existed.

The Standard Model allows for this. Order a Crispy Fish sandwich uncooked, then use the buns and Horsey sauce to barter with the guy at the liquor store.

I don't think "reality" is a viable term for what you're talking about. Science is interested in the natural world, but there's too much subjectivity wrt "reality". I don't think the natural world is mathematical, and nothing you've ever written about it is very persuasive to me, especially when I have more trustworthy science I can rely on. I think we've been able to describe the natural world mathematically to an astonishing degree, and I think your concept puts the cart before the horse. We made up the maths to describe what we saw. The physical universe does what it does, and we measure it using concepts that give us accurate enough explanations that we can make predictions that teach us even more. And I agree with zapatos, trying to push that load about not needing evidence because it's self-evident is a slap in the face to our rules and scientific methodology. Take that argument somewhere else, pal. You're welcome here as long as you obey the rules the owners of the site want the staff to enforce. Why don't all you folks who love to make shit up and assume it's interesting start your own discussion forum? You could have no rules at all, and follow no methodology, and you can search for meaning all you want without being held to any standards. You could discover fascinating new horizons and be much happier, while we plod along with our dumb old rules and limit ourselves to best current scientific explanations. How about that? The spirit of SFN is discussing how amazing mainstream scientific knowledge connects us all as a species and a civilization. It tears me apart when folks who obviously quit studying science far too early criticize it rather than overcome their ignorance about it.

And yet your own "subliminal prejudices" lead you to conclude we shouldn't read what they write, but rather intuit what they really mean? Or let the misinformation they're basing their idea on slide so we can hear the whole idea first before commenting? Or encourage people to use their imagination when they don't understand something, rather than ask a question of a science community? Tell me about it....

I read them EXACTLY the way they're written. I don't CARE why they wrote it, because science isn't really the place for why, so I'm NOT assuming anything. The friction is all in your mind, because it's not personal, and it's actually quite easy to see when someone is guessing and when they're supporting their concepts. Now you have it. I don't know the people behind the ideas. The ideas are assessible without them. Any prejudices we might have here are for rigorous support, and against breaking the rules, so they aren't subliminal at all.