Phi for All

Dead serious about holistic medicine? How appropriate. Your Mr Lipton is a quack of major proportions. Please use your reasoning skills, and think it through. If any of these cures showed ANY promise whatsoever, It would be EXTREMELY EASY TO TRACK. We look at cases over time where large groups of people are exposed to various treatments, and when one shows real promise, we focus on it. NONE of these quack treatments have every proven effective on a study level. All you have are bullshit anecdotes quacks like Bruce Lipton claim represent advancement in medicine. The focus on these "easy" cures is killing people. Stop being dead serious.

At least you can observe your fanged snake god among the tubes in the device. There's evidence your sacrifices are being acknowledged, right? My Humanism is being tested currently. When people reject their intelligence in favor of more primitive animal behavior, then what makes us different?

! Moderator Note Science discussion forum. You'll have to define your terms in a meaningful way next time.

! Moderator Note In Speculations, you have to support your arguments better than you have. You haven't been carefully taking critique and adjusting your ideas, you've just hopped from one dubious and unsupported explanation to another to another. IOW, the areas that you've outlined won't work as you've detailed them. The purpose and execution are poor and you haven't changed that a bit. This is page 2, so you need to find better support for your speculative concept.

Transporting a single person using a jet engine, at a time when jet travel is being singled out as a component of global warming? Pick a different purpose.

Make sure those wings can stand the stress you'll place on them when you inevitably decide your flying race car should be submersible as well.

Sort of a one-off flight, right, with no way to turn or land? The spoilers on a dragster are angled to avoid just such an emergency. It's ugly when the wheels that steer come off the ground going that fast.

Really? There may be Adam's apples under those scarves.

More support for the theory that shellac was to blame. Looks like Jesus could have used those ladies as battering rams.

It may seem linear, but when you think you're drawing from relevant sources you've been accumulating since birth. You choose the knowledge you need to apply to a situation from a large range of information you've previously put together from selected data. It's like your box of tools to deal with a particular problem. If you need to fix yourself something to eat, you're going to think of just those things you need to make it happen, and select the ones that will successfully turn your thoughts into action. As you gain more experience, your knowledge is broader and deeper, so the information you're able to draw from is richer as well. It's pretty amazing, really. The moment you feel hungry, your mind starts grabbing all the knowledge available to you, including your current preferences and available resources. You fill your tool box with what you need (no money but stuff in the fridge to make an omelet, grab a pan and a bowl and a spoon, turn on the stove, get the bacon, etc), and don't bother with anything else (you didn't grab the cat brush, or start your car, or check to see if you have any blue paint). Change the parameters of the situation, and your thinking is going to change as well (hungry roommates need food too, or the eggs went bad, or you find a bunch of money). It's a lot more than going from a to b to c to d.

! Moderator Note That's not how discussion works. It sounds like you're just "winging it" each time, and spouting out whatever pops into your mind. It's a style much more suited to blogging (or not writing at all, but instead focusing on reading). It's against the rules in a discussion here. I'm sorry, but our Speculations section requires you to support your arguments with mainstream evidence and observations. It doesn't look like you're prepared to do that, and doesn't everyone have better things to do? Thread closed. Please don't post WAG explanations like that here anymore.

I have some friends who took league play to extremes when they were younger. Flag football, bowling, baseball, basketball, these guys got to be pretty good for weekend warriors, and they trained seriously. I would define their dedication as that of an athlete, even though a trophy was the most they ever got in compensation.

! Moderator Note I'm going to suspend you for a bit, so you can talk to your therapist about some of these misconceptions you have. This type of discussion is quite obviously making things worse.

! Moderator Note Hey, no moving backwards. This has already been done. Move along.

Obsessing about this kind of immense, unknowable, outrageous problem that we have no control over is a kind of shield to protect us from painful feelings. You've got some real work to do on these underlying emotions, so let this go for now, and see how your therapy session goes. Best wishes always.

It's an excellent question! I'm not sure about chlorine, but I have heard arguments for an ammonia-based lifeform. It's not assumed in science that water is required for life, just that we know how well water supports it. It's also our best chance to find life similar to ours. You should study water. It's an interesting molecule, with some unique properties. I think it's the only substance where its solid state floats in its liquid state.

! Moderator Note This is unacceptable. You start a thread to bring in disparate comments and arguments from various members and threads, in a ranty, soapboxing blather that's just inviting more unfocused and meaningless replies and requests for clarity. Go somewhere and start a blog, or stay here and actually discuss science in good faith. There are no other options for you here.

! Moderator Note Yes, it's a science discussion forum. It's a given. So are rules. Abide by them.

! Moderator Note Please be more clear about that which you wish to discuss. "Better" is far too vague for a science discussion site, and your quotes don't help clarify the Opening Post as a thread starter. Do better next time, please!

Kartazion has been suspended for a month for messing around with the quote function. It's unethical to claim someone said something you've edited.

! Moderator Note It's there for all to read. You added words to an attribution to make it fit your point, words joigus didn't say. That's fallacious and unethical. You need to take a vacation, and we need a vacation from such intellectual dishonesty.

As well as how quickly he got up to Mach 50. And by what means (if he had no aircraft to protect him, would the air smash him before the acceleration did?).

! Moderator Note Please avoid throwing links at people under the assumption they'll understand exactly how you're applying an argument from them. It's against the rules to require anyone to go offsite in order to participate in a conversation. Give some context or provide specific quotes from the article so the membership doesn't have to dig to find your meaning.

The title says, "On Earth". Excluded would be off-topic.

I, for one, would like to hear Janus do the explanation of what happens at a baseball game where the pitcher tries to throw a "fastball" at the speed of light.