Phi for All

Bad inference, since there are so many lifeless planets. And don't you think you have it backwards wrt suns? It's not their "purpose" to provide heat. They radiate a LOT of it due to the enormous pressure of gravity, and life takes advantage of it, but only because life is better at managing heat from the sun than non-living matter.

That's exactly what I'm telling you. NO ONE CAN KNOW. Therefore, trying to guess or make it fit your "algorithm" or your "crossword" is NOT science. I don't know why you think it would be. You're guessing about things nobody can know and claiming you're right. ! Moderator Note This can't stay in the mainstream sections, Yusef, so I'm going to move it. You'll never be able to adequately support this as a Speculation. It's not even interesting as something for the Lounge. We're a science discussion forum, and you can't adequately support your idea nor defend the unscientific assertions you make. Perhaps some more study is required before you can explain your idea in a way that might persuade others that you have a point.

AlexandrKushnirtshuk has been suspended for a week for bad faith arguments, conspiracy, and soapboxing about how wrong science is about the size of the universe.

! Moderator Note I warned you about using ignorance to support more ignorance. Go away until next year. After that, bring some science or stay away.

! Moderator Note Now this is getting insulting. Don't post any more ideas like this, this is a SCIENCE DISCUSSION FORUM. Please find someplace else to post stuff like this. You obviously know NOTHING about these subjects, yet think you can solve the problems inherent to them. PLEASE study more and guess less, and learn about the things you are interested in. Learn so you can apply that learning in meaningful ways.

! Moderator Note You need to provide the derivation of your equation in your next post, or the thread will be closed. The membership deserve to know if you aren't arguing in good faith.

! Moderator Note You're welcome. Now please return the favor and answer some of the questions posed to you. They were asked specifically to challenge the ideas you've put forth, and they'll show where you've gone wrong, but only if you take the time to cooperate with the members who are taking their time to help you, and answer the questions. Please.

I was hoping they'd spin Bernie Sanders as the Eisenhower candidate. I still think he'd be a better guy to have in charge right now. Ike actually ticks a LOT of the boxes most modern Dems consider important, like reduction of military spending, higher taxes on the wealthy and a progressive rate that encourages investment rather than sitting on cash, and a deeper investment in public works and programs.

Go all the way back to Eisenhower and you can sign me up too. How bizarre is it that Ike's policies are now considered leftist radical fantasies by GOP leadership?

! Moderator Note This is NOT a scientific speculation, so I'm moving it to the Lounge, since I think your first suggestion is fairly standard, and the second is so weird that someone might want to ask you questions.

I totally agree, and I think the most obvious starting place for bi-partisan conservative agendas is with infrastructure. Personally, I tend to be VERY conservative wrt roads and structure maintenance, and feel our best value is in spending small amounts continuously to keep things in good shape, rather than letting things fall apart before we're forced to fix them at emergency rates. I like letting asphalt cure properly to ensure long life as opposed to the convenience of driving on it the day it's put down. Clean water and air are actually conservative concepts imo (or used to be), something very basic to life in any society, and one that's more easily accomplished publicly than by multiple individual attempts. But current Republicans don't seem to see it this way. Anything that regulates a business to tell them not to pollute gets voted down. I think businesses have too much influence over their employees, so I think the Dems should help fix that. Perhaps if health insurance wasn't tied to employers, folks could vote to help themselves without feeling like they might lose their job AND their insurance.

You should contact one of the companies that manufacture them, and let us know what you find out. But don't bother if you're just trying to promote a particular company. We're a science discussion site, and we don't allow advertising, but we're extremely interested in the technology and would love to discuss it with you.

! Moderator Note Enough! We ask you to clarify what you're talking about and support it adequately, yet every new post makes everything less clear. It seems clear you can't understand the explanations the other members are giving you because you can't see beyond your own concepts. Your style of argument is polluted with conspiracy fallacies, and somehow you think questions you can't answer but also can't be bothered to research properly are interesting and meaningful. You clearly are not ready for the type of reasoning science requires. Please don't post any more threads where you suspect cosmology of some kind of intellectual coverup. This is a place of knowledge and learning, not pitchforks and leeches and ignorant fears. We wish you well, but you don't listen, and that's required in discussion. Maybe you should start a blog somewhere? If you stay, please read more than you post. You have a LOT to unlearn. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note Your apology for criticizing the "snide remarks" of the members trying to help you see this is accepted.

I don't understand how ANYTHING you write relates to anything else you write. You keep blending your religion into the science you want to discuss. You mention ideas you had when you were young that have nothing to do with the subject of the thread. I think you must realize by now that we can't know anything about the universe before the BB. I don't know what you mean when you talk about crosswords and ancient scientists. It might be a language barrier, or it may be that you are misunderstanding something you've read, but I can't discuss this with you if I don't know what you're talking about. Sorry, Yusef.

! Moderator Note We aren't here to advertise your podcast. Please stop posting links to your YT channel.

! Moderator Note This is a big problem since this is a discussion forum. If you don't need us to talk things out, it means you're preaching. ! Moderator Note Preaching is against the rules, so this is false. See how reasoning works? This is what we value over your hand-waving beliefs and your god guesswork. You think you've found Truth, and you're going to ignore anybody who tries to help. We see this a lot, we tried to do what we could to help you, but it seems you're going to ignore all of that and stand against accumulated human knowledge. Have a good New Year, and I'm going to recommend to staff that you do so elsewhere. You need to find a place that isn't interested in facts, where you can make up your own truth anytime you want to.

! Moderator Note Then leave it out of any future discussion. We don't trust ignorantly-designed, make-believe explanations involving conspiracy. Evidence is needed, not guesswork involving photographs. This is your last chance to support this concept with something reasoned and trustworthy.

! Moderator Note Leave the religious aspect out of this discussion, please. We're in the Speculations section, so please use science.

Expansion happened EVERYWHERE, all at once. No center, nothing to expand into.

That's hardly fair. Nobody said thinking of the original question was wrong. And you ended the OP asking for a verdict: You asked if the line of thinking is wrong, and were given some great answers. Some of them you liked less than others.

What if you were told that your idea is flat out wrong because it's based on the incorrect assumption that cosmic expansion was like an explosion or shock wave originating from a point in space? We've heard of people who've spent the better part of a decade "researching" ideas based on bad knowledge, and we'd hate to see that happen to YOU. Accumulated mainstream human knowledge can save you years of wasted effort.

! Moderator Note Your duty, in this section, is to show this. Just saying it isn't enough, even when you add "completely" to imply extra impossibility. You can't argue against experiment by waving your hands. More rigor, please.

What part is giving you problems? This will help us help you.

! Moderator Note You can't use one speculation to support another. And don't advertise your threads in other threads, please. Stick to your topic, and try to keep everything non-mainstream in one place. You have a LOT of misunderstandings about science, and it's harder to help if it's spread all over the site. Thanks for understanding.