Phi for All

! Moderator Note ... aaaaaand good night, everybody!

! Moderator Note If you can't find SOME way to link the Alien movies to the use of aloe vera, I'll have to split this to its own thread.

! Moderator Note This thread is in a biology subsection. Religious arguments are off-topic here. Please stop.

This is well supported by existing evidence. Why you're proud of it is still a mystery though.

Hold on there! Being drawn to those like us does NOT imply we're hardwired for aggression against those who are different. That's where the fear-ignorance-hate cycle overrides our natural inclination to cooperate with other humans.

I guess wool see if anyone objects and we have to go on the lamb (haven't heard a bo peep out of anyone yet). I'd hate to make anyone feel consciously embarrassed.

Wether energy decreases when shorn of its motivation (but I'm sure ewe knew that). /baaaaaad puns

This is NOT how evolution works. You have misunderstood it. You should actually study it, it's fascinating, even more fantastic that what you make up about it. By definition, inter-human conflict is between the same generation of humans. Evolution requires at least a second generation. Individuals don't evolve; evolution is changes in allele frequency IN A POPULATION, OVER TIME. You doubt?! You're arguing from incredulity about something you could have easily looked up? When you discover something you're ignorant about, if you make something up instead of learning the mainstream answer, you're being doubly lazy. Look up tribalism and it's effect on human interaction. Tribalism causes us to like those who are like us, who have some bond with us. It was a way for early humans to protect their families and limited resources. Humans do a LOT of things other animals do, but we're also capable of higher thought, and changing our urges and behaviors to suit the situations. As humans evolved into agrarian societies rather than hunter/gatherer tribes, racism diminished, but is still a reaction in most societies to this day. "Fittest" takes on a different meaning in a modern society. Are you kidding?! "Those different-looking bastards want to take what we have, destroy what we are, how we behave as a people." "They have strange ways and don't respect the same things we do." What's illogical about that? It may be backward, antiquated thinking, but it's logically consistent. Racism is hardly abstract, it's usually discernible through the senses. People look or smell or sound different, so they become outsiders to those who look/smell/sound alike. I'm a bit baffled why you think this isn't known, or hasn't been studied. Do you get most of your science knowledge from videos, or do you read a lot?

Oh, aye. The very best thing.

We don't delete anything. I moved it to the Trash, where you can still read it, and the staff response. There should have been a link to guide you to it, but if I forgot to include that, I apologize. Science really doesn't need your kind of problem solving, even though you're convinced it does. The problem here is that we have a member who joined and is breaking the rules with their "approach". This member wants us to change the whole way we behave here at SFN, without trying to learn anything about us. The behavior is being reported by other members, all the right steps we've designed over the last 17 years are being followed. Protocol says we need to either suspend you, or put you in a moderation queue where staff decides if your posts are relevant and/or discussable before making them visible. If you have a third alternative within the rules, I'd love to hear it. Nobody wants to dampen your enthusiasm, but nobody wants to teach you the basics of science while you're screaming about all your uninformed ideas. What should we do with you?

! Moderator Note NO.

I didn't see this before. This is a BIG problem for us. It's against the rules for this site, and it explains quite a bit of why you post the way you do. You may want to consider a different discussion site. Or Khan Academy....

I can easily see why you feel that way. Why attach a value to something (like wine) based on what others think of it (especially when the grapes were probably sour to begin with)?

Incorrect guesses are one thing, and I agree that people who're simply mistaken shouldn't have their reps degraded. But adamant assertions that are easily shown to be incorrect are another beast entirely, and it often rubs folks the wrong way. Especially people who've bothered to study the material, and so are easily able to tell when someone is guessing but claiming they're correct. There is a whole class of folks out there who feel studying messes up their intuitive ability to guess correctly about profound subjects. This isn't true. You assume the points are given by participants in the discussion, and not by all the members reading. The staff often checks to make sure members aren't singling out anyone for persecution via rep points. Since we discovered you doing just that to someone else a while back, we've checked your points pretty carefully for retaliation. Your negative rep comes from LOTS of sources, not the SAME FEW POSTERS.

By this assertion, I can now tell you don't know much about about biology and evolution either. We can add those to your lack of knowledge about physics and cosmology. Besides zero evidence for telepathy, knowing how traits are passed along to future generations tells us that if there was an ability that connects minds, it would spread and strengthen very quickly after just a few generations. An enormous advantage like that couldn't be overlooked by evolution, yet we still have zero evidence that it exists. So good luck trying to tie that to virtual particles. Btw, something else you have wrong is the idea of "proof". Science isn't interested in "proving" anything. Science looks ALWAYS for the best supported explanations for various phenomena. That's why they're called "theories" instead of "answers". Theories are more powerful because we're always trying to improve them.

When I use scientific definitions to assign meaning to the above sentence, I'm met with tragic failure. "Parallel", "variable", and "inherent" all have specific meanings in science that aren't present in context. For instance, how can "logic" be both variable AND inherent wrt language? What does it mean for laws to be "parallel" to logic? And why are you using "logic" outside of maths and philosophy? Science has no interest in formal logic. Are you using logic to mean "reasoned" or "critically thought out" or "this makes sense to me"? Again, you aren't doing yourself any favors making this stuff up. I know it feels like you're some kind of intuitive da Vinci genius who can throw ideas at those who can crunch the numbers to turn your ideas to gold, but it really doesn't work that way.

A bit of advice. Until you learn a LOT more science, you should avoid making statements about "infinity", "impossible", "cannot", "ever", "nothing", "forever", or any other absolutes. You're almost always going to be wrong because there will be things you haven't considered, mostly because you don't know them (yet).

Here is a problem. You don't "get" any "area" in science without thorough study. We haven't seen any evidence that you "get" ANY areas, but it's clear you think you have a great deal to offer. Part of the reason your posts are getting negative rep is because your lack of methodology is counter to what science is trying to achieve. The steps science uses in order to trust it's explanations on various phenomena are plodding and deliberate and analytical. We make sure our footing is sound before taking the next step. What you're doing is leaping from one thing you think you understand to another thing you think you understand. You aren't taking the steps in between to build supportive evidence and reasoned conclusions that would allow anybody to see what you're doing and repeat it. If science is like trying to find the best path to cross a frozen lake, you're leaping from one unsupported chunk of ice to another. You seem to think it means you're abnormally intuitive about science, and don't need to learn about it to criticize it. I think you'd earn the same reputation at a fine arts discussion forum if you suggested flinging randomly colored paints at a canvas is all you need to make a masterpiece.

I worked in architecture for three years. The architects know everything the masons know, the carpenters, the plumbers, the electricians, the millworkers, everything. The architects also had to know what the building inspectors know. An architect respects the methodology that leads to success, and a big part of that success is knowing all the tools in the box before trying to think outside it. The biggest problem with your approach is that you're making up solutions without the necessary knowledge, so ALL your explanations make PERFECT sense to you (because you don't know any better, right?). But those who studied these things can easily see where you're wrong, they tell you, but it makes less sense to you than your PERFECT solution, so you ignore them. You remain convinced that you have solutions nobody has thought of before. Imagine you're a famous songwriter, with hundreds of hit songs to your credit, known the world over as one of the best in your profession. Now imagine that I tell you that I've never written a song before, but I have some great ideas that will be sure to shake up the musical world with their brilliance. I show you some of my ideas, and it's very obvious I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm convinced my songs are wonderful, but you know they aren't. You know, because of your knowledge and experience, that they have no appeal, they won't be accepted, and they make no sense musically. I don't use the right phrases, my timing isn't right, and because I know nothing about songwriting, my songs would take SO MUCH WORK TO FIX that it would be easier to just send me to a music teacher and insist I learn about the thing I so desperately want to change. I love your enthusiasm, but you need to study science. It's not something you can understand without a LOT of layered, nuanced analysis of multiple fields. Right now, it's like you're trying to tell a foreign country what they're doing wrong, and you don't even speak their language (math is the language of physics). Does that make sense?

! Moderator Note Discussing the Jupiter Abyss based on a photo from APOD is perfectly within our rules. The second photo was either off-topic (since it wasn't about the Jupiter Abyss), or was trying to change the focus to promote someone else's website, both of which are against the rules. Further discussion of modnotes will be split to Trash.

! Moderator Note If this is the topic of this thread, please desist. We aren't here to advertise for anyone. Please stick to a single discussion topic, hopefully within the rules.

I think "really think about" and "truly comprehend" are fallacious phrases (No True Scotsman). We can easily allow ourselves to be boggled by enormity in temporal or spatial relations, or we can grasp them at an accessible level. Imagine being in a spaceship that travels your entire lifetime, and you're immortal.

! Moderator Note There are clinical questions that can be answered in your opening post, but I'm going to caution everyone about giving medical diagnoses. We don't do that here, so please don't expect answers to questions involving what you specifically should do. The answer in those cases will be the same: consult your physician.

Trying to rocket our waste off-planet is too dangerous, even if we could justify the costs (roughly US$20K/kg, or about US$5-6T). One Challenger-level incident and we've got a bunch of nasty in the upper atmosphere. So if you had a facility in space that produced hazardous waste, and it was near enough to a BH that you could safely and cheaply put a capsule full of it on a radial trajectory, you could use the BH as a dump, right?. A minute out, the capsule might still have enough energy to change course, but once past the EH, spacetime is so heavily curved by the gravity that there is only one path to follow, for anything, no matter how much energy it has available to escape. The path in both space and time leads to the dimensionless point at the center. We can't know what happens, but it sounds more like a trash compactor than a dump.

! Moderator Note This isn't working for ANYBODY! Your summaries are WRONG, people have told you why, but you ignore what they're saying. You claim a theory is wrong when it's used EVERY DAY in modern science. YOU. ARE. MISTAKEN. You keep making the same mistakes, so I'm going to recommend that you stop re-posting your obvious nonsense and READ THE REPLIES. You're wrong about this, and you're being stubborn in the face of so many people who understand the science. If you can't bother to fix your ignorance in this regard, there is NOTHING discussion can do for you. You need to overcome this mental block that makes you think SR is wrong just because you don't understand it. I'm closing this thread and I'm going to recommend that you look through some of the other threads in Speculations where people didn't understand Relativity. Perhaps you can learn from them, since you can't learn from experts. Don't open any more threads about this until you've done some rigorous study!