Phi for All

Bmpbmp1975 has been banned for spamming, after an obscene number of warnings. We only needed one thread misunderstanding vacuum decay, thanks very much.

I think this takes unfair aim at the subsection. We designed Speculations so anyone willing to work rigorously towards a non-mainstream explanation of a particular phenomenon could discuss their reasoning and present supportive evidence. There's nothing preventing anyone from presenting a compelling enough argument to persuade the membership into a productive discussion, maybe even get the thread moved into a mainstream section. Such rigor is the antithesis of being a crackpot though. By the normal definition, a crackpot simply has strange, crazy-sounding ideas, but in science, a crackpot is defined as someone who's too lax in their methodology. More lazy than crazy.

! Moderator Note OK then. Until you can present this in written form, it can't be discussed meaningfully here. Reviewing videos is NOT what we're interested in here. There are other places though, and we wish you the best of luck. Again, come back when you have your questions available for written discussion. Thanks for understanding.

! Moderator Note That would be against our rules. One thread per topic. Also, if you're just posting this because you didn't get enough hits on YouTube, that's against our rules too. We can discuss the science of building this computer, but we will NOT be discussing your video. That's not what we do here.

I hope no governments consider your reverse-terraforming proposal. If possible, it's even more short-sighted than most governments are these days. Even if we give up on maintaining Earth's ecosystem, space colonization isn't going to be solely about changing humans to adapt to other systems. That's not what humans do. We can change systems to better suit life as we know it. Your argument seems like a false dilemma fallacy. We have more than the two choices you've laid out, to decrease pollution or recolonize. We're currently using a third option, which is to keep industrial contamination at levels that balance economic and health concerns. Many folks aren't happy with the proportions (for various reasons), but to reduce our solutions to two seems unnecessarily confining. Also, with outer space policy what it is, I think we have a MUCH better chance of revitalizing our environment than we do getting the world to agree on what to do with the rest of the wealth of the solar system. I'm excited about the prospects of colonizing other planets, but it's something we definitely need to understand and regulate unless we want all those villainous sci-fi plot lines to play out. If we aren't smart, compassionate, and united in our efforts, the first big group to leave the planet could own the rest of us in a fairly short time.

We used to have a card generator, quite some time back:

I apologize! It was Airbrush I was quoting, not you. He made the claim that "the best scientists" need to be able to explain what they do to a laymen. My mistake on the quote. And this was all in response to where the thread was headed in terms of explaining things to the OP. It was on topic at some point.

So, are you agreeing with MigL, that the best scientists have to also be able to explain ("to some extent" is moving the goalposts, but whatever) what they do to a layman, because the laymen is paying for the project? Does the layman's money magically give them the ability to understand, or does the layman's understanding impact the work of "the best scientists"? Perhaps I'm putting too much into MigL's definition of "explain". I don't think people who pay for someone else's expertise are required to understand what the expert is doing. Isn't that why they hired the expert? Perhaps the whole concept of listening to experts needs to be revisited, due to some spectacularly poor examples in recent years?

This will cause you to make many mistakes until you study more about it. There is a gap in your knowledge that needs to be filled with high-quality, trustworthy information, NOT things you make up.

I would be ashamed of the quality of the pictures. How could I ever ask anyone to take me seriously when I was SO lazy? What was I thinking, posting these on a forum where people discuss science rigorously?! I would hope that the members would forgive me, and I would step up my game, and stop pretending I'm doing science with such poor quality reasoning. I would do better next time.

Thank you, drama queen. They're worthless. I think you know that. This is for courtrooms, not science. You're defiantly claiming it is, but refusing to support the claim with anything more than hand-waiving and fuzzy pics. Poor conclusion. If your observation is correct, the BEST you could say is that it came from the sky. Not the same as coming from space. Did you watch it fall through the entire atmosphere?

I think withholding funding from the WHO during a pandemic may make Trump responsible for some US deaths: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/15/21222756/trump-halts-who-funding-coronavirus-pandemic In defending Trump's actions, Kellyanne Conway claimed that the WHO is too busy working on the other 18 COVID viruses to be effective in this one. Apparently, nobody told the WH that COVID-19 was named for the year it was discovered.

Well, that's completely different. Your mistake was posting in the Speculations section. It's assumed you're challenging mainstream explanations when you post there, but this sounds like you have some gaps in your knowledge to fill, and are more interested in asking questions than asserting something new. I'll move this to Earth Sciences. Can we assume you've read the Wikipedia article on Pangaea? Plate tectonics would be relevant as well.

This is a science discussion forum. NOBODY is interested in your altered state musings. We want something besides your incredulity to persuade us your idea has merit. "Makes sense to me" is just about the opposite of doing science. Do you have any evidence, or critical reasoning that supports your ideas? Otherwise it's just a wild guess, and that's really not interesting. Have you studied plate tectonics? It's fascinating stuff.

We have rooms, and they're at least 6 feet apart. Sorry if a couple of guys virtually hugging gives you a strange, self-induced feeling.

Probably NOT the gullible audience you thought. Your photos look like every UFO picture ever taken, except you had the luxury of a non-moving target, one you could position just right and take the best photos of. The only ones in focus are too far away to see details. This is the best you can offer? This seems very implausible. You find something you think is a diamond from space, and you HIT IT WITH A HAMMER?! Again, this seems very implausible. Could a rational human make such a monumentally short-sighted mistake?

OK, sit quietly for a bit, and close your eyes if it helps. I want you to focus on a warm spot on your back. That's my virtual hand, signalling the beginning of the hug. Now feel it spread as I clasp you to me with both arms. It's like a tingling warmth, and it moves as I describe my hand moving. It's like a hand-sized ray of sunlight is shining on your back in the middle of winter. Unfortunately, I can't extend the sensation to include the little pat on the back I usually give with a hug. These strange, self-induced feelings stop short of being percussive, or in any other way physical.

It's abuse in interpreting the Constitution, plus a lack of checks on presidential power to balance the conventions Trump has flouted (not putting his business in a trust, blatant nepotism, ignoring the emoluments clause, etc), in addition to the corruption you suggest. What the ballsy politician needs to suggest is that we've forgotten there are things money shouldn't be able to buy, like honor, scholastic merit, and votes. That's really the definition of corruption here, where money becomes "the root of all evil". It's not evil to buy the right things, it's evil when you use money to stifle the process for your competitors, or make it favor you above others. It's evil to use your money to change public opinion through misinformation and misrepresentation, which is exactly what so many lobbyists have become so good at. The average American has little intellectual defense against the PhDs of Spin.

There's nothing new about being able to isolate a particular sensation. Please read ALL the posts in this thread. Science discussion forum. Can you define what you mean by this? Do your pupils change from being round? OMG, nobody here would call it that. We don't like guesses, or new age woo, or nebulous phrasing. And we can be real jerks about it, but we just don't like science being misrepresented by pop-sci descriptions of the natural world.

I read something about Bush's surgeon general being considered a laughingstock because he had the proper reaction to an outbreak back in 2005. He reacted correctly, but got the Chicken Little treatment.

I wouldn't word it quite this way. I think there are absolutely amazing scientists who have trouble dumbing complex knowledge down so the laymen understands. It's a special talent when one can relate knowledge that way, but I don't think science/scientists have any obligation to do so. Does a master carpenter have to be able to explain to a laymen what they're doing in order to build a magnificent home?

! Moderator Note Sorry, but that doesn't work with our rules. "Discussion of methods to circumvent restrictions made at any level, including school Internet filtering or parental controls, is prohibited." Thread closed.

Learn what a dimension is. It's not a plane of existence, or another realm. It has a scientific meaning. ! Moderator Note We've had enough calls for closure, so this really isn't a judgement call from a staff member who's involved, but I'm going to close this. This isn't a great topic for our format here, where we're looking for some trustworthiness behind the arguments we make. If you want to use your imagination to think about your gods, you should be able to find a site where the membership isn't actively trying to keep your feet on the ground.

Prolonging life doesn't equal overcoming death. I don't think anybody in science is teaching that death might be avoided. Perhaps if we look at life as more efficient than non-life in terms of using energy from the sun? Then death can be seen as a recycling of the mechanisms that make future life possible. Or considering that all the bits that actually create a new life are alive themselves, perhaps evolution shows us that life is a continuous process that death is part of.

I don't see it this way. To me, it's all belief. When presented with ANY knowledge, it's up to the individual to determine (in their most effective manner) whether it's believable or not. Some knowledge requires faith (just believe it in spite of no evidence), some requires hope, but the best knowledge is based on trust. When using the scientific method to determine the best explanation for various phenomena, the knowledge I gain from that is far more trustworthy than knowledge I believe based on faith or hope.