Phi for All

! Moderator Note Ouch! It's clear you don't understand science in the least if you can say this. Eliminating subjective influences, like making up your own physics, is one of the reasons scientific methodology is so successful. Your posts violate our rules against soapboxing (because you NEVER support your non-mainstream ideas with actual evidence), and your seeming immunity to reason makes you look like a troll. I invite you to either get help by asking questions rather than pushing your misunderstandings so assertively, or just back off and try to read and learn rather than post. Unless you change your style or enjoy a less active role here, you'll get a couple more warnings and then we'll ban you. Discussing science in your style is meaningless for everyone, and actually hurts your understanding deeply. Thread closed.

It's a tactic he uses successfully to destroy limitations. He lies so much it becomes difficult to gauge their degree of egregiousness, so he gets away with behavior over everyone else's limit. He screams that the press are the enemy of the people, and they don't hold him as accountable as they would anyone else (why aren't normal outlets reporting the true craziness he spouts at his rallies? Why aren't we getting a journalistic analysis of why someone rants for half an hour about imaginary toilets that require 10 flushes?). He screams so loudly about the corruption of others and it absolutely makes a lot of people ignore the fact that he's King of the Swamp, probably one of the most corrupt leaders the US has ever had. He gets away with it because we let him. We don't demand actual information from our leadership. We fall prey to tactics most of us find obvious. The taxpayers almost completely fund this 24/7/365 political circus in one way or another, helping to perpetuate a system designed to favor wealthy participants only. We willingly let it happen, willingly cut our own throats and act against our own best interest, just like we're willing to eat or drink or drug ourselves to death. The vast majority need publicly funded programs for education and health, yet we willingly let the elite condemn that as "socialism". Trump is purposefully increasing our tolerance for outrage, and it seems to be working. With Republicans, when it comes to asking a foreign power for favors against political opponents, when you're a POTUS they let you do it.

Tradition is a powerful motivator, but it does seem to often stand in the way of progressive attitudes. I've always thought of the UK monarchy as a symbol of duty and stability, something that doesn't change and can be counted on as a cultural rallying point. At the same time, I think many traditions keep us from trying things that may be more appropriate to our times and circumstances. I've always had the impression that the UK was not as generally racist as the US is, or at least parts of the US. Perhaps the "upper crust" is not immune to the kind of thinking that plagues our southern states? And I would imagine that royal bloodlines are much more sensitive to "outside" influences, since much of their status is derived from who their parents were.

Please define what you mean by "scopes". It can mean the entire area that is dealt with by the subject (which would be quite difficult to list here as part of a discussion ), and it can mean opportunities to deal with the subject (which again is quite a large amount of things). It always helps to be specific when starting a discussion so everybody knows what you want to talk about.

I have to say, over the years, the mainstream deniers have given me the impression that it's less about poking at the establishment and more about the superiority they feel when they discover they don't have to actually study it if they can ridicule it, claiming it isn't worth it. Science is a LOT of work.

! Moderator Note Discussions can't be meaningful if there's no attempt to explain the terms and circumstances of the topic. Our #1 rule of civility requires: Be Coherent When you reply, try to make as much sense as possible. Organize your post into paragraphs or sections as to make it easier to understand. If nobody knows what you're saying, they aren't going to learn anything from it, or try to reply to it. If you are going to say "it" or "one" or "they" then make sure we know what you are talking about. "It" is not a very descriptive word and people may get confused as to what you are trying to say.

You're right, we need to build an applicator to isolate human influence from the experiment and give us consistency if we're going to get federal funding for this.

! Moderator Note I blame the new voice recognition. People can now post without using their fingers for typing, so they keep them firmly stuck in their ears., Thread closed, sockpuppet banned, lost potential weeped over.

Your only questions are sarcastic and unhelpful. Your assertions have mostly been wrong, and have been pointed out to you, but you've chosen to ignore them. You're rejecting explanations without reason, simply because they don't seem intuitive to you. This isn't personal, it isn't about you. It's your approach to learning that's causing a problem in discussions. I have to ask, is there any way to reason with you on this subject, or is your incredulity always going to be an impassable obstacle? How can we turn this discussion into a meaningful one? Several people have tried explaining what mainstream science says on this subject, but it's hard to have a conversation with you when half the effort is spent trying to get your fingers out of your ears.

! Moderator Note westom, it's abundantly clear that you're being purposely obtuse about the definitions you're insisting upon. Ignoring people when they ask for clarity shows you have poor discussion skills. You really need a forum like this, but please don't stay here if you're going to continue block your own learning experience. It's not fair to you, and it's certainly not fair to those who took their time to help you remove some ignorance. ! Moderator Note This thread is closed.

I obviously did a horrible job of explaining it if this is the impression I left you with. I described a "gravitational inward force" instead of just saying "gravity", to help with the concept of overcoming degeneracy and thermal pressures. Matter is (probably) compressed inside a BH because of the insanely curved spacetime past the EH. We feel curved spacetime as gravity. Imagine you're approaching a star 100 times the size of our sun in a spaceship. As you get nearer, your options for selecting your course become limited. There are certain paths that would inevitably lead you straight into the sun, because you have a limited amount of energy to change your course. Most of your options DON'T lead to the sun, and of course you would choose one of those if you want to live. Now imagine the sun you're approaching went supernova long ago, forming a black hole. Outside the EH, the gravity is still similar to the sun when it was in main sequence. You still have many options for paths your engines can take around the BH. As you cross the event horizon however, spacetime become so curved that your engines don't have the energy to move you anywhere except straight to the degenerate matter at the heart. Your options for course rapidly become very limited. You don't have the energy to escape that single path, nothing does, not even light. Normal dimensions are both compressed and stretched to the extreme, due to so much mass in so small an area.

The BB wasn't an explosion from a single point. It was an expansion of all the hot, dense matter and its evolution into a cooler, less dense state.

! Moderator Note Moved from Science Education to Engineering. First you need to establish that this phenomenon happens to more than just yourself. An experiment needs to be devised. Besides different brands and compositions, you also need to factor in the amount of hair present (and possibly length - does long armpit hair use less product than a short stubble?), as well as temperature and humidity conditions. Does the pressure used affect the wear, and do men and women use differing pressure when applying it? And as Bufofrog mentions, the shape of the armpit is also a factor. Why do you find this bizarre? As a guess, I think if you experience any unevenness in the application of a product like deodorant, it's most likely because the manufacturer receives no benefit from changing. If you're satisfied with the price, shelf life, and how the product takes care of the problem you bought it for, that's where the manufacturer is focusing their efforts. It could also be that the uneven wear makes you use the product faster (trying to even it out) and purchase more.

Black holes are formed when gravitational inward force overcomes both the thermal pressure outward and the degeneracy pressure keeping electrons and neutrons from compressing. Two neutron stars could also combine to continue degeneracy and become a black hole. And of course, the maths show us that the extreme curvature of spacetime past the EH is enough to cause matter to instantly degenerate. Philosophy is better suited to "why" questions, but science observes that this process where stars sometimes lose their balance of inward and outward pressures is what distributes heavy elements around the galaxies. The universe thrives on equilibrium, it would seem, and matter appears capable of stability in two heavily compressed states as well as at normal densities.

I think many people get the idea that the event horizon around a black hole is like an entrance, so they reason their must be an exit. The EH just marks the boundary where spacetime becomes overwhelmingly curved due to the mass of the former star core having overcome degeneration pressure to become so tiny and dense. Past the EH, there simply isn't a path in space or time that doesn't lead to the degenerate matter. Time isn't regressed, but the future of anything that crosses the EH becomes inevitable.

I would hope such a study would have a way to define "dissenting" in a meaningful way. Something I see all too often is one person making a misstatement (speaking too generally, or exaggerating, or using fallacious reasoning, etc), or being too superficial in a description. Then a second person corrects them, or goes into more detail, and gets marked as a dissenter. Sometimes being overly accurate and precise is a way to avoid giving tacit approval (gotta say something or it looks like you totally agree). Sometimes it's necessary. And sometimes it's not dissent so much as clarification. I think this is closer to what the OP is talking about. Sure, we're still overly tribal in our thinking, but I think it's the anonymity of the medium that's driving this behavior. Personally, I think our lust for extreme entertainment has generated this weird format where everything is boiled down to two sides screaming at each other from opposite sides of the room.

Some technology relies on other technology, and they often aren't in sync. The steam engine was discovered long before we had practical mechanics to take advantage of the power produced. Much of what the OP is talking about is what happens when a species has to spend all it's time gathering food. Coming to grips with what to do with all the free time agriculture gave us took some time. Better ways of making everything were discovered once only a fraction of the population was needed to procure sustenance. More than all that, making the shift from tribal nomadism to concentrated population centers was obviously a hard sell for many at the time. The best and the worst of humans is amplified as population density increases, and we still see distrust and division today. Also, remember that scientific methodology won't be a thing for several millennia. When questions arose in early human civilizations about specific phenomena, answers were readily available. It was the gods, obviously. When people are given answers, they stop asking the question. It wasn't until we started treating science as theory that we stopped looking for answers and started looking for the best supported explanations. From there, our knowledge had firm footing to build upon, and thus grew so quickly in the last several centuries. Human knowledge is a lot like a roasting marshmallow; ignorance keeps us from absorbing knowledge like a white marshmallow resists radiation, until finally enough is absorbed to change the color, which allows a lot more to be absorbed, which changes the color even faster. Every generation of humans knows more, and knowing things leads to knowing more things. Nowadays, we absorb more facts in a day than some folks back then did in their entire lifetimes.

westom has been suspended for 3 days for continuing personal attacks. We focus on ideas here, and we rigorously attack THOSE to make them better. People don't work that way, so we strive for civility and respect when it comes to our membership.

! Moderator Note I'm so unimpressed with your efforts to discuss this subject civilly that I'm going to give you a three day vacation, and hopefully you'll reread some of the helpful posts trying to update your knowledge of electricity. Please lose the attitude, stop trolling for reactions, and realize that however well you THINK you're explaining yourself, it's failing categorically. A discussion is about persuading people with your arguments, and so far you're just a monkey throwing shit. Come back better. I'm going to ask everybody else to leave this thread alone while westom is suspended. Maybe the new year will bring new insights.

! Moderator Note Videos by themselves are not allowed here. This is a science DISCUSSION forum, so you need to post openings for such discussions. What you're doing looks like advertising a YouTube channel, and that's also against the rules. If you have some points to make for discussion, please do so, but do more than point us at another site. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note westom, I was prepared to believe your training as an EE didn't require the same rigorous terminology that our physicists use, and that was the reason for the misunderstandings we've seen in this thread. But you continue to attack people rather than their ideas, and you seem to have a big chip on your shoulder about this. It's causing your posts to look unreasonable, full of preaching/soapboxing with no substance, no evidence to support your arguments. Others explain why they hold their stances, but you just wave your hands, and that doesn't work in a discussion. It makes you look like a troll just trying to get a negative reaction. It's possible to support your ideas without attacking people. Why don't you show how the Fourier series supports your ideas instead of using snide personal comments like "Apparently you do not know anything about the Fourier Series"? WE expect an attitude change from YOU, since you're the one arguing in bad form and failing to support your arguments. You've had three pages to express yourself, to persuade other members your ideas have merit, and you've wasted them so far. Please do more than insults and hand waiving.

Merry Christmas to all, and a hope for prosperity and insight in 2020.

! Moderator Note westom, civility is our most important rule. We attack ideas here, not people. Please focus on the topic and the arguments. For instance, you make the above assertion but offer no examples or evidence this is so, and instead attack the people involved in the discussion. If there are relevant facts missing that give you insight, why wouldn't you share them and help remove some ignorance? Without this kind of support, you're just waving your hands and talking louder. You also seem to be cherry-picking which replies you deal with. There have been some excellent questions asked, the answers to which I'm sure would reduce the levels of confusion we're seeing in the thread so far. Please go back and give these a second look, if you will. It's a learning opportunity for everyone.

I think iNow's quote is originally something Jonathan Swift might have said: "You can't reason someone out of a position he or she was not reasoned into."

Attention to detail and a focus on form often helps me express myself more reasonably and meaningfully. Critical thinking needs a decent amount of rigor. As for the rest, um... What were we talking about?