Phi for All

! Moderator Note I think discussion is the wrong approach for someone who is convinced they "know" something. There's no room for learning when obsession sets in, and it clearly has blocked reasoned thinking in your case. You tend to ignore and pretend not to understand when a reply doesn't support your way of thinking. The most appalling strategy you have is to jump to other questions IMMEDIATELY after being told something that should make you STOP and reconsider your whole perspective (stars aren't stationary). You don't bother to take data on board so you can turn it into useful information, or correct flawed thinking on your part. This learning strategy is practically guaranteed to spiral downward into more and more confusion and misinterpretations. It doesn't help you learn what your species has discovered about the universe. History shows you'll ignore this warning and continue to guess about science while mainstream explanations are offered, and then complain that nobody answers you. This is a form of soapboxing or preaching, and it's against our rules. You're going to start receiving Soapboxing warnings if you keep it up. Suspension and banning could follow. Whether this is all an act or not, it ends now. We don't allow conspiracy, we don't allow trolling, and we're not well set up to teach you the basics you seem to lack. This is a science discussion forum.

... and might end with an unjust law being changed. I don't know about Canadian law, but in the US, the courts don't overturn bad laws on their own, they need people to break them and then argue in court why it was the right thing to do.

It's not so much a claim as predictions based on observation that have worked in every testable situation. Theory is about the best available explanation, not about what is "known". If observation doesn't match the theory, the theory is changed. But why change it when it works? You're just nit-picking in a meaningless way, and that comes from someone who loves to pick a nit.

! Moderator Note Your interest in learning, it seems. ! Moderator Note Thread closed.

Because we can observe farther than we can send probes, see outside the fishbowl. I don't think you understand how relativity works, and I don't think you understand the predictive power of scientific methodology.

We've never observed spacetime behaving differently. Until we do, the null hypothesis states that physics doesn't behave fundamentally differently in different parts of the universe

Time is a temporal dimension, length is a spatial one. Both add degrees of freedom to the way things move in the universe.

! Moderator Note You obviously know it well enough to consider their poison and hatred justified, and you posted a link to it here. Repeatedly. Please stop.

! Moderator Note NOTHING on that website is trustworthy as evidence, and if you EVER try to push their filthy, lying conspiracies here at SFN again, I WILL BAN YOU. If that's not clear, then you need to PM me and I will explain it.

And to some, a rigorous approach to the details is a big part of the basic principles. Methodology is important. We aren't trying to be inclusive of every viewpoint. It's a science discussion forum. We're trying to avoid the kind of wild west guesswork that pollutes so many other discussion forums, and at the other end of the spectrum we try not to be as rigid as the largest science forum. You have TONS of choices if you don't like having your feet held to the fire. Most people here feels it makes them better scientists, but not all like being challenged.

To me, it seemed more like Strange was being overly polite regarding your unsupported position rather than attempting any kind of smarm. The fact that you're spending your time arguing about how we're arguing doesn't help support the understanding you're trying to foster. We're willing to be persuaded by strong arguments, and so far I've seen none. And the whole "My ideas challenge your hidebound preconceptions!" bit is worthless here. The rules are extremely clear about supporting speculative ideas. If you have evidence, let's see it!

Serious?! It's in the Sculptures Made of Almonds section of the Lounge. This is the least serious section on the whole site. This is a section for silly, silly.

Actually, he's leguminous. Willie Nelson is nuts, but sings "Crazy". He also has one of the world's most non-existent almond sculpture collections.

Smaller sculptures are easier on aging hands, but it's hell on the eyes! I can easily imagine most of the detail being done with a pin or needle, but the difficult part is removing what you don't want and leaving what you do so you have something to detail. Seeds and nuts are so much softer than wood.

I don't eat clay or marble either, but I use these things (along with almonds) for sculpture. Not everyone can handle the danger involved in cyano-artistic expression, but you shouldn't let your fear keep you from enjoying the most important part, the kernel. Allegedly carved from an apricot kernel:

They should grow apricots. You get the delicious fruit, and in the center of the pit is a kernel that looks just like... an almond! Finally, our nation's mini-chiselers in drought regions can carve their nuts and eat them too!

Accurate, trustworthy, objective information is often clouded by emotional responses and criticisms to it, and we now have the www to help amplify that effect exponentially. It's imperative that science maintain the standards of its methodology, and on a forum that discusses the subject it's too easy for unreasoned arguments to take over the conversations. Many think we're far too forgiving lately. No matter what obstacles to learning a member may have when they post here, it does them no good to fill the gaps in their knowledge with unsupported popular misconceptions. You obviously were mistaken in thinking swansont was moderating in your example, but even if the quote had been in green or red, his statement reflects the way the site administrators have arranged the moderation. If you make a claim, you have to support that claim if you want to keep talking about it assertively. We have far too many examples IRL of seemingly intelligent people being bulldozed over by unsubstantiated claims that are screamed loud enough and long enough to make them seem real. Do we want to allow that here?

Humans fixing things with tools? I'd give that a big, opposable thumbs up.

! Moderator Note You need to show some science here. Supportive evidence for your assertions are required. Where you diverge from the mainstream, you need extraordinary reasons to do so. PDFs are more trustworthy than document files, but you should post any relevant maths or evidence here. Also, we're not here to support your YT channel. Video is NOT our preferred medium for learning (thus the discussion forum format). Rigor and methodology are your friends in the Speculation section.

! Moderator Note Listen, this is a science discussion forum. The platform is very good at filling in gaps in knowledge, and for clarification on various topics, but it's NOT a teaching platform. I don't know why you didn't learn science formally in school, but that's where you need to be right now. I think it's really harmful that you're trying to learn science from popular articles. It's quite obvious that your approach is confusing the hell out of you, and you have no formal curriculum, so you bounce from misunderstanding to misunderstanding. No offense, but you're like a 5-year-old who's trying to learn politics by reading the newspaper. Why aren't you taking some science classes instead of trying to understand it so haphazardly? Sorry, but you need to learn some other way. This is a stupid approach to learning anything. The membership keeps giving you answers to your questions, and your next question shows you didn't understand the answer, and then you complain that nobody is answering your questions. This thread is DONE, and we don't want any more like it. Take some formal science classes, please. Discussion helps fill gaps in our knowledge, but you need to bring the basic knowledge with you.

It was the rooster.

I decided to do that famous chocolate-orange chia pudding they celebrated with after the Battle of Agincourt, along with the traditional bacon-wrapped filets.

! Moderator Note Please consider the members who actually want to learn mainstream physics. Please consider how confusing it is to them to have you bringing up your unsupported pet theory in a section clearly marked as a mainstream topic. The only place for speculation is in the Speculation section. This is why we have the rule you broke, and why you're being warned yet again for thread hijacking. We expect you to follow the rules you agreed to when you joined.

! Moderator Note You're making it an incredible amount of trouble, because you can't seem to recognize when someone is answering your questions (SO many answers have been given, but you're still looking for someone's help?). How many posts/pages were wasted because you kept insisting on temperatures below ABSOLUTE zero? You keep bringing up unrelated information you picked up from sources you refuse to link to, yet you want accurate clarification in the replies you get. Everyone here would love to show you what mainstream science has observed about the topic, but you seem very resistant to learning. It's clear you have many misconceptions that are holding you back. Can you please think about how you might alter your learning style? It clearly is doing you no favors, and it seems to be actively blocking you from accepting help.

! Moderator Note Please quote that part then, like this: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang ! Moderator Note It's not though, and people have pointed that out. And you've ignored them. So they asked you for a link and a quote where the claim is made, and you ignored that too. Nobody is interested in "from what I've been told". Please ask questions about specific things you've read and can link to. This will make it easier to not only correct your misunderstandings, it will remove you as your own biggest obstacle to the learning process. You have a tendency to confuse yourself by not learning one thing correctly before proceeding to the next.