Phi for All

There's a huge problem with this tactic if you aren't learning from a structured approach to the material. Humans love patterns, our brains look for them everywhere, and will even force us to see them where they don't exist. You can't trust pictures you make up yourself. They seem PERFECT, because you made them up based on incomplete knowledge. They seem so simple to you, but only to you. You see them so perfectly it resembles some ideal machinery, because you made it from the parts you had, and only those parts. You need the knowledge and vocabulary (using standard definitions is a key to expressing your ideas to others) of formal education in the subject. Khan Academy is a great place for someone who knows mathematics to also learn physics. You need some mainstream study more than you need to spend time making up explanations for various phenomena. You obviously have a sharp mind, and you need to apply it more meaningfully. I think you would tell me the same thing if I told you about my Speed Dating Theory in Anthropology, or my How Dividing By Zero Creates Black Holes Theory in Mathematics.

! Moderator Note Moved to Homework Help.

To survive a drop and still move (in any direction?), you need wheels that are big. You also need to eliminate the possibility that the car lands on its side. Compact discs, with an extra long axle that sticks out from the hubs, perhaps?

Isn't it also more accurate to say that the molten core is what allows the flow of nickel and iron to produce our magnetic field? The field can't drive (produce) the molten core if the movement of the core is required to produce the field.

Be careful of the proverbial fall your pride is leading the way for.

You're off-topic in this thread. The table discussing whether there is a soul in the first place is three rows down on the left. This one is discussing when a soul may have developed during evolution.

Like video, a scientific paper can be produced and edited until it conveys exactly what you want it to. There should be little emotional involvement, if any. And I could take a look at a paper and tell in about 30 seconds if the writer knows what they're talking about.

You're probably right. It's hard to trust videos. I'm sure there's a lot of good information out there, but discussing videos on a forum like this is a real hassle. At least with the written word, you can scan for validity before committing to reading the whole paper, and you can quote specifically with great accuracy. And with videos, you never know if the whole point is science or to increase the number of hits for the channel.

I'm not sure why this would have more weight than comparing String theory with more mainstream theories in terms of speculation, or his own ideas with String theory. He can disagree with moderators all he wants as long as he's not breaking rules, but he's still going to be wrong about Sting theory being as speculative as his own idea.

I'm guessing you don't spend much time on science discussion forums.

Wow, that's a new interpretation to me. I thought even the souls in hell were there for eternity. Yet another reason to be a Humanist, imo. Religious folks love making stuff up, then believing in it with their whole heart.

! Moderator Note The OP has indicated he isn't interested in discussions requiring the SFN level of rigor, and won't be responding to the excellent questions posted regarding his idea. The thread is closed.

Extremist capitalism encourages avoiding taxes by any means. They like it when corruption is considered part and parcel of the process. I disagree, both with your conclusion and your style of chopping up replies.

Since he seems fairly bulletproof when it comes to his lies being uncovered, I don't think he's worried about his lack of charitable contributions coming out. His base still thinks he's a good businessman because of his assets (they see a forest instead of a bunch of diseased trees), so there's little there to harm him. I can't believe he's willing to risk so much speculation just to avoid a little bad press, so there must be something in his returns that he greatly fears being made public. What else could it be besides shady dealings with Russia? Collusion seemed to be the issue he always wanted to downplay. I think he realizes corruption can be dealt with as long as it's within your own country. The POTUS owing favors to an adversarial foreign government may be the line even he can't cross. He has an unprecedented level of ongoing, unfettered corrupt behavior because he keeps hinting his base will revolt if he's held accountable, he has a grip on the for-profit media, and because the GOP benefits from some of his rabid racism. Remember, when he heard a special counsel had been appointed to investigate him, his reaction was "I'm fucked!" Even HE expected it to end his presidency.

This makes me think you have the wrong idea about what a theory is. Theory is as good as it gets when it comes to scientific explanations.

These are just the ones that show he's incompetent as a businessman, compared to others in his wealth bracket. The records that could show his involvement with foreign actors (selling a $40M home to a Russian oligarch for $100M) and his charitable contributions (or lack thereof) are the ones he's always refused to release.

You're too late for the whitewater apple-bobbing tournament, but you're just in time for speargun tag season! Welcome back, we missed you. Where the hell have you been?

! Moderator Note Those sites aren't this one. Here, we don't bother to discuss speculative science unless you can show something worthwhile, or at least more than your ridicule and waving hands. We require more rigor here. So get off your high horse and follow the rules we've developed to make science discussions meaningful. We attack ideas here, not people. So far, your ideas lack rigor. Show us, persuade us with your evidence and reasoning, because acting like an asshole is failing miserably. If you care to come back tomorrow when the five post spam limit is removed for new joiners, please do so civilly. And try not to label everyone who questions you a troll. It doesn't help you learn anything.

I have no problems with people testing things, even their faith. We should be as certain about our belief systems as we can be. I think what happens far more often is people of faith arguing to equate faith with trust. Some don't seem comfortable with faith having no reasoned basis, so they make one up in defiance of the standard definitions. I can sympathize, it would be hard to come to a science discussion site and claim, "I simply believe with all my heart. I don't need a reason. I'm convinced of the truth of my faith."

Thank you, hindsight. This is known as "acting on best available evidence". They had tons of reputable, testable, repeatable evidence that was state of the art at the time. The point is, they didn't need faith when the math, the models, and the experience gave them a trusted, rational basis for their belief in manned flight. I don't think your example of the Wright Brothers supports your arguments about faith. Just sayin'.

What if I invent something that helps the environment? It seems unfair for me to pay the same tax/fee that the inventor of a gasoline guzzling de-rainforesting machine pays.

If you're trying to suggest that all projects (businesses included) should be assessed a tax that helps offsets the damage humans have inflicted on our environments, I can agree with that. If everyone and every endeavor gave a small portion to fix our problems, it would not only be effective at combating problems we've created in the natural world, it would also give humans a great reason to band together as a species. Imagine if we didn't waste so many resources squabbling amongst ourselves, and actually had more common goals....

I would argue that belief in UFOs is based at least partially on visual evidence (even if the photos are always grainy and blurry). You rarely hear folks talking about UFOs without some kind of visual support, or physical manifestation (crop circles, scorched landing sites). UFOlogists almost always trust in their evidence. OTOH, religions often talk about faith as a strong "sense" of rightness, you "just know" your worship isn't misplaced, and your faith doesn't require anything real to back it up. It just abides.

Why only authors? What do you have against authors? What about authors of books on environmental restoration, aren't they already doing enough to help? I don't understand why you used the word "alignment" in the title, but I suspect it's a translation goof. With regard to the poll question, I don't understand the relationship between the question, the choices regarding improvement, and what author gets "in the end". I suspect this is also a translation problem. In English, your thread makes very little sense.

I don't understand this thread at all. What is it you want to know? Why did you start a poll? What country is this process used in? Are you asking about forcing authors to fund some kind of nature restoration program? Why only authors?