Phi for All

! Moderator Note Olorin, it's against our rules for you to assume your unevidenced, non-mainstream aether concept is a valid argument in the mainstream sections. Either open up a thread defending your idea in Speculations, or stop posting about it. You can't use these ideas in discussion until they're supported.

! Moderator Note A couple of off-topic posts were split to Trash here. Please don't mix religious outlooks in with science discussions, and it's NEVER all right to bring up paranoid conspiracy here.

An astrophysicist I know who recently moved to the US from South Africa says this is exactly how it is back home, every election. What did Trump call places like that?

Frogton has been banned for bad faith arguments and promoting their own agenda. This is a science discussion forum, folks.

! Moderator Note What blog?

Yusef has been banned, since they could not keep from preaching and claiming their religious ideas are scientifically "proven".

! Moderator Note NO! You proved nothing like this. Preaching is bad enough, but lies like this can't be tolerated. Please find somewhere else to post crap like this.

If FOX News and other conservative outlets aren't pointing out that Republicans in charge have been watching for exactly the things the president claims have happened, how can viewers be expected to add that fact to their reasoning? The "information" they're basing their opinions on is incomplete or misleading. A reasoned argument is almost automatically a properly informed one, isn't it? I can't help but think that a Walter Cronkite-era newsperson, someone required by law to inform the public, would be pointing out that, if the president's allegations were true, conservative paranoia about voter fraud turned out to be about as effective as an unarmed, minimum wage, teenage night guard at the warehouse. A newscaster not focused on entertainment could point out how silly it is to think the GOP auditors are so dim-witted. Walter would have focused on the real fraud being committed, I think.

But look at how many Republicans are convinced that SOMETHING fraudulent happened under the very noses of their own supposedly vigilant party? I don't much care how they think politically, but this is a breakdown of reasoning skills, and I think it's due in part to wishful thinking, but mostly due to all the idiotic claims that have been repeated and allowed to avoid assessment by a media uninterested in actually informing the public.

What we have now is the knowledge that somehow organic matter started from inorganic matter in the absence of a biological process. That's equivalent to saying, "Your ancestors got to this continent by traveling". We know that's how it had to be, there's no other way we can imagine it happening, but we don't know exactly how it was done. And because of this I understand where beecee is coming from. Hard to imagine life always existing, so it had to come from non-life at some point.

Exactly, but that doesn't make a theory fact. Theory needs to be open to new information. I think of facts as "answers", and we tend to stop looking if we think we've found an answer. Our best current explanations regarding the fact of evolution are organized as the theory. It's a technical distinction, but I think an important one. All that said, I have to agree that, whether or not Earth life forms started on Earth, a form of abiogenesis seems to be the only reasonable explanation for the step between inorganic and organic matter. Without a testable mechanism to repeat the process, I don't think we can think of abiogenesis as anything stronger than hypothesis.

I would say false. Evolution is a fact (we observe it and so can't deny it), and the Theory of Evolution describes the process. I don't think there's any need to elevate any theory to "fact" status. It implies that theory isn't strong enough when it certainly is, and we get to keep improving it if it stays a theory. I think it sends the wrong signal when we update "facts" based on new evidence. And welcome back!

Of course. Science doesn't look at tests like this in terms of success/failure so much as opportunities for improvement. Exposing weaknesses in trials is a good thing, and part of the engineering process. Better to know now than to discover this problem when the payload is valuable. I sure hope you aren't here to promote one private space company while trashing the others. That's inconsistent with our purpose.

You lost me on this part. Something about so many mistakes....

I'll talk to you, joigus! I think Steg means "waste" instead of "waist", and "intact" instead of "intake". By surge, I assumed an increased rate of something, likely power.

CuriosOne has been banned, not for poor spelling, but for rejecting all attempts to help them learn. Being actually "curious" would have made a big difference.

! Moderator Note Best of luck elsewhere with THAT!

! Moderator Note This is NOT the thread to challenge well-established science. If you have the evidence to support your counter-concepts, post them in a new Speculations thread . It's off-topic here.

This is very personally insulting. I'm quite frankly tired of your whining and cancerous attempts to justify your own lazy incredulity. So many people have gone out of their way to help you see past your own mental barriers to learning, and now you call it all lies. You take all their hard work and compassion for a fellow learner and piss all over it. I think you've been given enough slack to show you don't appreciate any of it. It's quite clear you got EXACTLY the answer you were asking for, only you don't like it because it's clear you made a mistake. I appreciate the grace and style others have displayed in response to your childish foot-stomping, but it's clear no amount of patience can breach your carefully constructed palace of ignorance. Best of luck elsewhere, please don't waste any more of our time.

! Moderator Note Off-topic posts have been split to here:

! Moderator Note I'm feeling generous in the New Year, so I've moved this to Speculations (even though I can't imagine how the OP can be defended reasonably). Please support your assertions with evidence, and good luck. I'll give you two whole pages to persuade the membership your idea has merit. You get three more posts on your first day (automatic spam protection), so make them count.

I think you've rendered the term "purpose" meaningless by equating it with "fulfills a function within a system". Most things fulfill multiple functions, but their purpose is usually something more overarching. People can determine their purpose, but a planet is just a stage for an environment, which may or may not support life. It can fulfill many functions, but it has no purpose the way I think that's defined. As joigus said, purpose is more of an emergent property assigned by intelligence to set goals. Planets have no purpose in that sense.

Not if they're twice as big as Jupiter, where the gravity might not support the formation of skeletal structures. And what about water-covered planets and gas giants?

I feel this way about all the adjustable stuff in cars that only I am going to drive. If I'm going to adjust it once and then leave it, it seems like an expensive waste of mechanics. Pretty sure the gaming chair is the same way, completely adjustable so you can customize it to your size. I don't think anyone is making chairs with specific configurations you can't change. For one, when you spend that kind of money, the chair is going to last and your body may change over time. For two, our desk/chair arrangements are rarely as static as our cars, and you may need to adjust your chair for many reasons.

I look at most things as tools. If you use a tool a LOT, or if it matters a LOT that it does certain things very well, you'll never be sorry for getting the best you can afford. Some tools are fairly universal, such as beds and shoes, and I ALWAYS recommend getting the best available. Getting good sleep and being able to walk/stand comfortably really improve the quality of life. I would add an office chair to that list if you spend a great deal of time at your desk. In that regard, it's like a good bed because you use it for so much of the day. I would spend the extra for the gaming chair. It's only 2X the price of the one at the local furniture store, but I'll bet it'll last 3X longer and be 10X more comfortable.