Phi for All

I think ignorance is the real factor here. I think ignorant people rely more on their emotions to help them decide, and when they do that, it's unlikely an intellectual opposing argument is going to influence them. As I mentioned in another thread of yours, I think liberal and conservative are too loosely defined to be meaningful measurements, and actually keep us talking past each other.

Classifying large groups of people using a single word may help increase the quantity of whatever you're looking for, but it's unlikely to improve the quality. Perhaps part of the problem comes from the "liberal" and "conservative" labels? In reality, nobody can always be one way or the other, especially when these labels mean something different to each person who uses them. Is it more conservative to spend tax dollars wisely, or to not spend them in the first place? How liberal are you if you don't want your healthcare to bankrupt you?

Dimensions measure degrees of freedom within our universe. As a coordinate system, dimensions don't care about scaling, they're just used to measure what we observe. I can measure a building to get coordinates for the three spatial dimensions, then I can add extra floors to make it taller, or add extra rooms to make it longer and wider. Since Earth is moving along with the asteroid I want to land on, I have to plot where the asteroid will be in the future when my rocket arrives there (the x, y, z, and t coordinates for my arrival). The ideal is to aim it just right (NASA calls this the "window", the path where the rocket won't run into anything else on the way), figure out exactly how much fuel I need to get there, and at the right moment I fire the thrusters. I can't drive there like an automobile does on the surface of a planet, using a steering wheel. My rocket launches in a completely straight line, affected by spacetime curvatures caused by energy and mass (gravity), and the asteroid moves into my path because that's how I calculated it, and we land safely.

Charles3781's explanatory skills are an illusion. He was talking about the 2-dimensionality of images on your computer screen which simulates 3-dimensional objects. It was a confusing reply to someone like you asking a legitimate question. We CAN perceive the third dimension, it's not an illusion. We can measure length, width, and height to determine the parameters of an object or phenomenon. How tall a building is, how thick a cut of meat is, how deep the water is, all these are visualizations of the third dimension.

I think you enjoy being in the dark more than spiders.

Length, width, and height are the three spatial dimensions we use in our coordinate system, or x, y, and z mathematically. You can visualize each by moving 90 degrees away from every point along the previous dimension (moving from a line to a plane, then from a plane to a cube). The third dimension is equally pictured as height, depth, and thickness, and lends a quality to objects we think of as solid. Time (t) is a temporal dimension in a continuum with the spatial dimensions (spacetime). I can give you specific x, y, z, and t coordinates so we can meet for lunch on the 45th floor of the Empire State Building, or plot where you need to aim your rocket to reach a specific asteroid, and when to launch it so you can hit it without other maneuvering.

When talking about things that haven't been done before, how can you possibly know what doesn't matter? How can you claim there's no more innovation left in Mechanics when we're on the brink of being able to mine asteroids in space? I mainly wanted to make sure you aren't fooling yourself into thinking you don't need to study science in order to have intuitive leaps regarding it. There are a LOT of those folks around. As Area54 mentioned, you may be doing this backwards, setting a nebulous goal to invent something scientific rather than becoming interested in a field of science and broadening your knowledge of it (thus increasing the chances of developing something interesting or even game-changing). Just be careful you aren't trying to catch up in one huge leap to anyone who's been carefully plodding along. I love to write, and I have to remind myself that the goal is to tell a story, not write a best-selling trilogy.

! Moderator Note The way you've framed the OP, a reader is forced to watch that video, which is against our rules. Please summarize your question in context.

Are you asking how you can get rich from science without actually studying it? That's how this reads to me. Do you feel like you have an intuitive grasp of science that doesn't require all the details and maths and rigor everybody else seems to need? Do you think this intuition gives you the ability to leap far ahead of the others plodding along with their theorems and models, and reach conclusions it takes others a lot longer to reach? Do you feel like there are really simple answers to the questions others think are so complex, something anybody could figure out if they start with a clean, uncluttered mind?

MSC has requested a temporary suspension to focus on other pursuits.

That's the way I always think of the USNO, a bunch of lucky physicists intuiting premises without awareness. Four leaf clovers, rabbits feet, and atomic clocks. We're lucky GPS works. ! Moderator Note Happy to help.

But if I thought we should have them, would it be better to make an intellectual appeal by promoting discussion along these lines, or should I just stamp my foot and demand that it be done? And if the latter, should I also send private messages to the staff berating their lazy volunteer asses for not appreciating my subjects as much as I do?

Yes, but the rest of us understand how being harsh while trying to persuade is a failed tactic.

My friend, your signal to noise ratio is WAAAAY off. I think you need to take a break for a while, and think about your behavior towards a volunteer staff of people looking to share science knowledge. Your behavior behind the scenes is equally appalling. Please, everyone is frazzled at the present, and nobody needs you adding to the stress load.

Let's be clear. You're posting like it's not allowed, but we're talking about sub-forum headings here. Why not post some threads about Logic, and if enough of the members think it needs to be it's own section, we'll do it. And then staff will move past conversations into the new section, and have to start policing the new Logic subsection, where people go to post about the stuff that makes sense to them. We're not saying we won't add a new header if the membership wants it, but know that it's not a decision you're going to make for us with your browbeating and petulance.

Mandlbaur has been banned for repeatedly bringing up non-mainstream topics they're unable to support, and are now being foul and hateful about it.

The reputation system is a weird blend as a gauge of how much a poster contributes. Every member gets one vote on each post, even staff. You talk down about science quite a bit, so perhaps you've acquired some haters (or misread your audience?). You seem to enjoy an aspect of competition that embraces denigration of a perceived "opponent", which is very common in people who like to "debate" what they think they know. All of this tends to sit poorly with people who just want to discuss science and learn. We have to hope you don't start really trying. It's all about expanding my own ego. The more I know, the more everybody has to listen to me and do what I say and be just like me. Eventually, I'll just kick you all out and write all this stuff myself. My brain is all that's needed to explain everything to everybody. Or... or, discussion with peers is part of a successful methodology, and it needs a place where that's respected with as much rigor as we can apply with volunteers.

You spread ignorance with such conviction. That's a dangerous trait, and one that seems to be gaining strength in our society despite access to so much information. See Dunning & Krueger. The original owner of the site (aka Administrator) was in med school when he asked me to moderate. He's a doctor now, expanding his own ego in the pursuit of medicine, saving lives, but he still checks in every now and then. The current Admins/owners are brilliant as well, expanding their egos in the fields of computers and chemistry. It's easy to see how big their egos are by all the advertising dollars they reap from this site, and the way they stop people like you from saying bad things about their science discussion forum.

! Moderator Note Due to the non-mainstream nature of the topic, I'm moving this to Speculations. Please support your concepts with evidence and sound reasoning. "Things that could seem physically impossible", for instance, needs a more rigorous approach as an explanation if it's to have any meaning at all.

Wow, I've never tried to discuss anything with someone who's blind to context. You really can't see why I used those particular words wrt the freedom of speech argument EvaWillis89 made? That would explain this strawman. Oh, I see. Arguing in bad faith about our first amendment so you can sneak in a poke at our second.

No, they're a reply to sophistry. To show that some things can't be allowed, by constitutional right, to be spoken at any time a person feels like it. No, it's to show that some things can't be allowed, by constitutional right, to be spoken at any time a person feels like it. What a bizarre strawman, btw. I'm sorry you feel so intellectually cornered that you resort to fallacy. Is it because you don't understand what free speech is in this context?

! Moderator Note Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum. Owing to security concerns, documents must be in a format not as vulnerable to security issues (PDF yes, microsoft word or rich text format, no)

! Moderator Note Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum. Owing to security concerns, documents must be in a format not as vulnerable to security issues (PDF yes, microsoft word or rich text format, no)

I was talking to Randyjohnson, who is obviously religious. Quando a Roma, parli inglese, amico mio? I have VERY religious neighbors down the street who support the current POTUS. Half their ten kids are female, so I'm always curious why folks like this are OK with him admitting he abuses women. He didn't even have to promise never to do it again, he just deflected it as locker room talk. Hallelujah! On a moral level, I don't wish anyone poor health. That's beneath us as thinking humans. Trump was only part of what happened with the stimulus, and where he could have truly used his executive branch clout, he fumbled badly. He's getting the best of care, while millions went without even PPE because of his direct inaction. Jesus, can you please do something about this sick, sick president we have? His head is congested with all kinds of foul filth, his viral messaging is diseased, and the evil he breathes out is going to be the death of all of us. Good lord, we need help!

Perhaps using this kind of negative generalization as a basis for starting a complex discussion is unwise. It's possible to dislike how someone behaves without wishing them ill-health. Some people use their emotions to judge people, and others use observation and context. Assuming I don't approve of something this POTUS does because I don't LIKE him is ridiculous. I can judge him by his attitudes towards public ownership, and his actions I disagree with (doling out public lands to friends, inhumane immigration policies, a general dislike of expert knowledge, his attitude towards women, et cetera, ad nauseum). Also, Randyjohnson, I'm fine with wishing the president a swift recovery from his illness, as well as hoping he rots in hell for all the pussy-grabbing he's done, all the citizens he's killed with his inaction, and all the shame he's brought upon the country. What's unbelievable to me is a person of prayer like you thinking so highly of such a moral stain of a man. Are you a pussy-grabber too?