Phi for All

"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?

! Moderator Note Some science would make this more interesting and discussable.

I'm so sorry, but I can't spend any more time on this thing you call a problem if you can't spend any time actually listening. Your problem is not your height. Good luck.

What a fantastic team of humans! Congratulations NASA!

Not sure if this is covered by your choices here, but Texas has gone out of their way to avoid selling or exchanging power with other states due to the costs of compliance with federal regulations. They've been beating the "Big Government" drum loudly, so it would be easy to just let them suffer, but it's hard to find properly informed Americans anywhere these days, and many of them would probably recognize reality if they were somehow exposed to it via their "news" source(s).

THAT explains the extra sag in them lately!

! Moderator Note We've been down this road before, and you have nothing new to show us, it seems, so you use these shitty, fallacious, bad-faith tactics to discredit your detractors, rather than analyzing the science they're bringing to the discussion to refute your racist agenda. Staff has decided we're going to treat this genetic superiority subject the same way we treat discussions about creationism. We just don't bother with such lunacy. If it looked like you had ANY interest in overcoming your current genetic ignorance, we'd be happy to discuss the topic with you. This type of post just shows us you've predetermined your stance, which makes you a preacher and a soapboxer, and discussion isn't the place for you. Thread closed, don't bring it up again.

We're missing some gravity?

Indeed. It seems romantic to romanticize them. These chaps require certain behavior around women, which they're more than willing to abide by if the women would give them a chance. But they also make far too many assumptions about women for someone who doesn't speak to them. The drunken slob is unworthy, yet he has no problems making women smile. A side effect of drinking too much can be exposing honest feelings, and if you're even halfway into someone, it can be powerfully attractive when they share like that. If you don't simply talk to a woman as a person, you might imagine she admires that tall guy she's looking up to. If you actually talk to her, you might find out that guy gives her a pain in the neck. Ultimately, the pedestal is insurmountable because we don't try to climb it. We're trying to jump up there all at once. That's what ends up making women nervous. A slow climb, getting to know the terrain as you go, is best. With people of any gender, talking to them and listening to what they have to say is the best way to get to know them. As a great astronaut once said, you can't open the book of my life and jump in the middle! Like woman, I am a mystery.