Phi for All

I don't know about that. Does he claim a disk design is integral to creating this "free energy"? I've thrown my share of frisbees, and a saucer has some great stability along with its aerodynamics, but options for steering and propulsion are limited. Many people have made these "free energy" claims, but none has shown any promise. Not even a single demonstration that would lead anyone to believe they might truly be close to some kind of secret. I remember a guy in the US who made a car whose motor could generate more power than it needed to run it (or so he claimed). He drove it around in front of stadiums full of people, but he would never let them examine the car. He claimed he was worried someone would steal his idea, and had many excuses why he couldn't re-create another motor. If any of these claims were true, it would be the easiest thing in the world to show to experts. We have members here in this forum who know enough science to be able to evaluate a claim like that, if any of these inventors would allow their work to be evaluated. I still think mainstream science is your best way forward.

No such thing exists. There are several proposed ways to harvest fuel on a long space flight. A ramscoop might harvest hydrogen for use in a fusion reaction. Light sails could be used to eventually bring a space ship to impressive speeds.

It does almost seem like magic sometimes. I'm getting near to needing cataract surgery, but my eye/brain connection is still amazing to me.

There's nothing that says wormholes can't exist, but we haven't found one yet. If we could, we'd need some breakthroughs in technology before we could use one to travel. The flying saucer design (like they used in Lost in Space) is pretty fictional. We've experimented with them before, because without an orbital platform in space, we need a spaceship to move through our atmosphere until it reaches outer space. The saucer shape is hard to maneuver, and wasn't any easier to fly than a jet, but it was probably thought to be tougher, and take more stress. In space, your design doesn't have to be aerodynamic because there's no air. A Borg cube works as well as a Klingon Bird of Prey. So if I were you, I'd study some rocket science. The NASA website has a ton of interesting information. Shooting a rocket off and landing it on another planet is like calculating when and how hard to throw a dart so it hits a dartboard that's on the side of a car driving on the highway in the next city over. For the maths to do that, please visit the Khan Academy website.

I read the "embedded" part as an unfortunate word choice. "Readily available" seems more appropriate, and doesn't have the physical implications. Still, the idea that we don't actually see light physically, but instead detect it through some sort of consciousness filter is demonstrably false. But if one studied the eye before studying light, I could see how the misconception can happen.

Are you asking about understanding wormholes, and are you ALSO asking about understanding flying saucers? Or are you asking about how a flying saucer might navigate a wormhole? Also, can we just use rocket science, or do we have to specifically discuss flying saucers, which are disc-shaped? Or by flying saucers do you mean any Unidentified Flying Object? As far as study goes, are you looking to learn, or do you have a practical application? Asking about saucers and engineering makes it sound like you want to build one.

I accused you of nothing. I observed that your explanation is lacking several key mainstream elements, and that seems to have allowed your mind to run off into the weeds to pursue some unphysical options. We know that our vision isn't related to consciousness, since the receptors still work when we're asleep. Our brains don't always need our eyes either, since we're capable of tracking targets mentally even though we've taken our eyes off them. If vision were as you say, we wouldn't see the behavior we do when the eye is damaged. What we do see is perfectly in line with predictions made based on photoreception. I'm saying that your statement about your explanatory gap is a subjective one. You reached a point where you stopped understanding what you were studying, and started making things up that made more sense to you. Others persevered, and they understand and use the mainstream explanations every day. How does your explanation work better than the ones we have that let us see so much, and so far away?

Whether or not you had access to the list swansont referred to, it was made clear you both were simply not on the same page in that instance. Nobody said anything about lying, until you decided on your own that it "came across as an accusation". Then you spun that up into "Swansont called me a liar!", and now you want him to apologize for it. I don't know about Tom, but I wouldn't. This is why I hate how ethics is often studied. There seems to be no way to disagree with The Ethical Folks without it becoming an issue of your own integrity.

Filling in the gaps in your knowledge with Stuff You've Made Up is a horrible disservice to yourself. The biggest problem is, since you didn't study what you didn't know and only used what you knew, your explanation makes perfect sense to you, and only you. And it's going to take you forever to see this, because your idea will always give you the answers you want.

Book sales. It's easy to imagine that our modern diet has flaws, but our diets changed radically not so long ago. On an evolutionary scale, we're still adapting to a diet that benefits from agriculture and animal husbandry as opposed to the simpler fare hunter/gatherers consumed.

Here, let me post again what I said: "This is a good example of the unassailable stance I mentioned earlier. You claim to be the one with ethics, and judge me as the one with anger who's not in the right frame of mind and needs to chill out and stop holding baseless grudges. I must be unethical, because you surely can't be!" I'm not sure how to explain this any better. I'm not saying you made any claims. I'm saying THE UNASSAILABLE STANCE is the culprit here, because it assumes I've got all these problems that make me wrong (I'm angry, I'm not in the right frame of mind, I need to chill out, all your words btw). The flip side, of course, is that you're automatically the ethical person in this exchange. Please understand, I'm posting this as an interpretation of some of the ethical stances I've seen posted over the years. It really has nothing to do with you or anything you've specifically posted. Like my observation about skeptics, it's behavior I've noted and want to be aware of, always. I'm happy to reprint the whole conversation here, if you like. Let me get permissions from the other two participants. The offenses weren't worth an apology. It's disingenuous to claim someone called you an asshole when they actually said your behavior might make you look that way. I'm still not sure why you flew into such a rage when I told you that threatening to leave unless I banned someone was unethical to me. Most of your hurt feelings seemed to stem from that. Every hour I'm awake. I think you should figure out what you stand for reasonably first, then put all this passionate energy into THAT. This overblown reaction is counterproductive. You seem very reasonable about other subjects, but when you start talking about ethics you get very high-leg about the subject, and act like anyone who disagrees with you is calling you a monster. That's what triggered my comments about the unassailable position. You act like we're all at fault here, but you were the one who asked the staff to do something against their own ethics, and when we pushed back you unleashed the kraken on us, and accused us of all kinds of things. I think there was a molehill that needed attention, the staff didn't act quick enough for your liking, so you've now turned it into a mountain. Merry Christmas!

This is a good example of the unassailable stance I mentioned earlier. You claim to be the one with ethics, and judge me as the one with anger who's not in the right frame of mind and needs to chill out and stop holding baseless grudges. I must be unethical, because you surely can't be! It's like skepticism, which can be easily misused. Skeptics can't just sit on the fence. If they don't accept something, they need to dig into it and decide one way or the other. And folks who study ethics should be wary of assuming their arguments and stances are always right. Adding a disclaimer to note that I'm still discussing the meta-ethical aspects of this topic, and my comments have nothing to do with anyone personally, or with any past event, or a different thread, and come from a reasoned frame of mind.

Beyond reproach is what I said and meant, since having a high bar for proof is easily discernible from considering your stance unassailable. Let me point out the difference between what I said and what you're arguing against, otherwise you're strawmanning me. I advocated forming an intellectual argument first, THEN putting your emotions and passions behind THAT, rather than starting off emotionally. How is that "a state of pure reason where no emotion is felt"? Don't do this again, I don't suck that badly at explaining things. Perhaps you should reread my response to your OP again, and not react as if I accused you personally of any of it. I was responding to your offer to discuss meta-ethics with an opinion of mine regarding the topic. I'm happy to bow out if this isn't what you had in mind.

Ah, much clearer. Like cleaning a window with butter.

! Moderator Note Please explain what you wish to discuss. Only massless particles can reach the speed of light. "Warp speed" is a fictional concept. Please rephrase your opening post.

Here's the inherent problem with this outlook. Being capable of judging when something is complex enough requires that you understand it, and how can you understand it if you reject it right off?

Maybe you don't understand what modern science is trying to do. For starters, it's not looking for answers. A theory is our best current explanation for any phenomena we observe in nature. A theory is capable of improving, and is always being challenged and tested with new experiments based on the latest data. Theories are based on mathematical models that are trustworthy to an astonishing degree. Theory is as strong as it gets in science, mainly because it's not etched in stone the way an "answer" is. Theories require constant updating, whereas "answers" are rarely questioned. People who think they've found an answer stop looking. If we're interested in knowing more about the universe, we need an extremely trustworthy way of deciding what we actually know, a way that's resistant to our biases and wishful thinking. Scientific methodology works.

! Moderator Note The company's website doesn't do this? This sounds like you're trying to advertise for them.

What about all those areas where humans (not man) improved on nature? How can you view nature as "dominant" in general when we've overcome so many of its obstacles?

! Moderator Note Even though I'm involved, it takes no judgement on my part to see you're pushing something here that should be in Speculations, so I'm moving the thread there. Please defend what you're talking about, or at least explain it so others can understand what you're talking about. Use science, and remember any evidence you might have that supports your arguments.

! Moderator Note This is trolling, and if you want this thread to continue, you'll get to the point right away.

Start with the "incredible as it is" part, then realize that the evolution of the universe is very well explained by mainstream science. Hopefully now you can see it's anything but meaningless, and we don't need all the make-believe guesswork you've tacked on for some reason. In my experience, many people find science and it's layered knowledge too difficult, and they flee into the glorious world of "the things I make up make MUCH more sense to me!". It's a shame you see the scientific perspective as a "meaningless cosmic accident" when it's truly amazing how we came to take advantage of the universe we found ourselves in. You have human intelligence, and if you haven't noticed, it's extraordinary. But we know pretty much exactly how we diverged from other species to achieve it, and it still doesn't require anything more than natural explanations.

What was unclear about my pointing out the fallacious logic you've used? I made sure to explain them carefully. I even used actual quotes from you, broke them down to show you exactly what I meant. Please, please tell me what was unclear? Both those interpretations are correct. Since the definition of potential requires that the thing in question not exist YET, then nothing can possibly exist as potential, and in fact, nothing does exist as potential. I'm glad we can agree on this. Your earlier assertion that intelligence must exist first as potential is false, and since your title question was answered early on, is this discussion done? Unless you torture the definition of potential to fit your argument, I think this line of thought is unproductive.

You were posing this argument below: Your failure to recognize the Strawman argument I laid out in black and white shows some bad faith going on. Your resistance to reason seems forced, as if you have no intention of being persuaded off your position. That's not discussion, not if I can't possibly show you where you're wrong in a way you will accept. You should start a blog somewhere if you don't want dissenting views.

! Moderator Note This isn't Philosophy, this is rewriting some mainstream science, so I'm moving this to Speculations. Please support your arguments and assertions with evidence, and answer any clarifying questions posed.