Phi for All

I just realized that folk song is probably why I think of the progressive movement in "tool" terms, and why I hate it when people talk about using one way of thinking for everything. I just can't believe I didn't immediately think of Tevye like you did. OMG, you get earworms too?! It's a small world, after all. It's a small world, after all. It's a small world, after all. It's a small, small world!

Yours is MUCH better than mine. I've been bitcoining in the morning, bitcoining in the evening, bitcoining all over this land!

Why burden the living with the bodies of those past dead? Why not keep the memories alive and let the bodies recycle? Whatever that means, does it require dead bodies, or can you achieve the same goals without them? Can you honor a person's deeds and memories without having their dead body requiring eternal maintenance and space? Are you Walker, and are you trying to sell this to idea to rich folks by using us to advertise?

! Moderator Note You don't get to do this in ANY mainstream section. We have a Speculations section for challenges to mainstream science. Open a thread there if you think you can support your extraordinary claims, but don't hijack other threads with unsupported assertions. It's against our rules.

If you're making up terminology in a paper, the whole paper is a mistake. You can't claim "spin conjugate dynamics" is a real thing just because it's in a paper, so you also can't claim there are no mistakes in the paper just because the things it mentions can't be found elsewhere. "Not even wrong" refers to being completely off-base in your conclusions because you've misunderstood the criteria presented so badly. Like trying to define the physical behavior of an American football without taking it's shape into consideration, and instead use menial temperature, co-joined acceleration parameters, and prevailing chemical perspicacity as key factors. If I told you a football bounced the way it did because of those things, would you claim you couldn't find any mistakes with my explanation?

Efron is in the foreground, DeNiro a pace back, so the perspective makes him seem taller. Also, look at DeNiro's shoulders (uneven) and his tie (also uneven) which suggest he's slumping a bit to the side, probably because he has his left arm up around Pesci's shoulders. Want more? Efron's suit lines are showing a single color, which makes you look taller, and it's white as well so it stands out. DeNiro is breaking up his tailoring lines with an open coat and a lighter shirt, so his height looks broken up as well. And it's obvious that Efron's got about an inch and a half taller hair than DiNiro. Why, did you think there's a height conspiracy going on in Hollywood?

I think the space makes the whole premise too costly. And why are we preserving bodies if the intent is to memorialize? How does having the bones make the rest of your memorial better, rather than just costly? Remove the need to preserve the bodies and you make the rest of your idea feasible. We certainly don't need so many dead bodies for reference, but archiving imagery regarding laudable achievements is something we seem predisposed to do.

Can your "theory" calculate the height of a geostationary orbit? If not, how is it more coherent than BB? Can you show where you think our current explanation is "failing"?

"Over-conventionalism in matters of doing and interpreting science" is also known as "rigor". The problem with viewing it as excessive is that cutting corners and sloppy rigor don't produce trustworthy explanations for natural phenomena.

As I check back through the posts, I see that nobody brought up this tautology, most especially me. Why are you trying to make it seem like I did? Sorry, Photon Guy, but the analogy obviously has flaws that are being pointed out. It's kind of the nature of analogy to be limited, and in this case your understanding of taxation has set a low threshhold. I see what you're saying, but don't agree with your take on taxes.

Why surmise? Why not review the 8 pages of evidence? This is a science discussion forum. I didn't claim you "said" it, I asked if you meant to encourage fredreload down a path known to be bad. Why else would you be claiming his idea is feasible, and that the members are picking on him? I don't understand your argument with our attempts to falsify an idea, and I'm asking for clarity.

One of the truly beautiful things about science is we don't have to bother with sentiments like this. It's easy enough to see, after 8 PAGES of "picking on newcomers" (what irony), that the idea as presented is NOT feasible. It's been explained over and over again EXACTLY where fredreload is mistaken. How you could view that as anything but scientific professionalism and rigor baffles me. It's science, not a popularity contest. Are we supposed to encourage him to pursue a path we know will fail? How cruel of you!

I don't think this is a good example of things energy and the economy have in common. I don't agree with your reasoning, but it's probably because I have a different perspective on taxes and their relationship to the work accomplished by them.

! Moderator Note You're not being ridiculed, you're being asked to support your ideas. Don't be so melodramatic.

You're moving the goalposts here. Are you claiming up to 80% of taxes aren't being used in ways we would like? I'd like to see a citation on that, but we're moving out of physics here.

! Moderator Note Making sockpuppet accounts is also against our rules. I'm going to leave your BC account, and ban the RH. Don't be so intellectually dishonest.

! Moderator Note Seriously, you said this within your first three posts, on a SCIENCE DISCUSSION forum? You need to show that you're not here to argue in bad faith or troll for rabid responses to nonsense. You get five posts on your first day, so two left to add some reason and critical thinking here, or I'll have to shut this down as not meeting our minimum expectations for speculation. And our rules state you have to do it without forcing members to watch videos or go offsite.

In this case, singularity simply means our math fails us at such incredible density and heat. We can only calculate back to a fraction of a second after expansion began. It was the entirety of the universe, very dense and therefore very hot. So dense there were no electrons or neutrons. So hot it couldn't stay that dense. A neutron star is material that has overcome electron degeneracy to become incredibly dense. A black hole has gone further and the matter there has overcome neutron degeneracy as well. Your incredulousness is misplaced here. There is good science to study if you're not scoffing. It didn't explode, it rapidly expanded everywhere all at once. No explosion into something else, no center of origin, no leading edge. The Big Bang theory doesn't say what you think it says.

No offense, but when presented with something that doesn't make sense to you (any of you), it's silly to call it silly. It's silly to just make something up BASED on your misunderstandings. You should ask specific questions about the specific things that you don't understand, and listen to the answers to strengthen your knowledge. The BBT follows the progression of the observable universe from an extremely hot and dense state through rapid expansion to its present structure. It's our BEST CURRENT EXPLANATION, and we know this because we can cross-check it with other things we know. If these things were wrong, we wouldn't be able to land craft on Mars, or even make our GPS system work.

Besides taxes not really representing a loss, since you benefit from them in other ways, it's also only around 10-25% of your wages. In your automobile analogy, you could be losing 80% of your energy due to internal combustion and the associated systems. Imagine if you only made 20% of what you do now, and there were no public roads, no libraries or parks, no public schools or airports, and no other services your taxes provide.

If you're speaking of a big bang, it's not right to think of it as an explosion. The BB was a rapid expansion of the entire universe. If you're speaking of a black hole, there is no "aperture" or opening in a conventional sense. And nothing is going to be propelled out of a black hole. Nothing has the energy to escape the insanely curved path through spacetime that leads to the matter at the core. Another common misconception due to popular science writers trying to explain gravity using only two dimensions. There is no "fabric" of space, and it's another bad way to visualize what's going on, because it leads to misconceptions like yours. In our best current explanation, the three dimensions of space are inseparable from the time dimension, forming the spacetime continuum. Gravity is produced by objects with mass and energy, and curves spacetime in predictable ways. This model (LCDM) also shows that dark energy is causing space between non-gravitationally bound objects to expand. This has no support whatsoever, but the same would be true if you claimed it was finite. There is simply no way to know if the universe is infinite or finite, using any kind of trustworthy methodology. It's not even something you could answer philosophically, afaik.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please read the special rules for this section. You need to support your ideas with evidence, or have some maths to model what you're talking about. Please use mainstream science. Welcome to the forums.

Perhaps you have some misconceptions in that regard. Newbies who want to discuss mainstream science aren't shouted down, ever. Newbies who want to challenge mainstream science using their own made up, unevidenced pet theories get asked to follow the rules, which they often misconstrue as being shouted down. No offense, but this is the sort of comment that makes me think this is all about complaining. If this is a compliment, it's very back-handed. His name was blike, though, and I believe he practices medicine now, so yes, he's doing a good thing.

Bad analogy, I'm afraid. Taxes get used for something, but energy losses in physics are usually to unused heat and friction. A better analogy would be an unnecessary middleman on a deal, someone who does no real work but gets paid anyway. Or using private funding for something that would be more cheaply done with public funding, like building toll roads instead of public highways, where profit for the private company is taken unnecessarily from the system without doing any extra work.

Volunteers trying to provide a platform for discussing science. Volunteers with a limited amount of time. No offense, but you seem to be asking us for a lot of information you can use to complain about us. Others may have the time to update you on our development since about 2012, but I doubt anyone on staff does. Can't you slake your boredom in a way that involves more discussion about science?