Phi for All

! Moderator Note This is NOT a blog. It's a science DISCUSSION forum. You need to amend your style if you want to stay here. Less preaching, less soapboxing, less lecturing. Try sitting at the table having a conversation aimed at persuading us rather than jumping up on the table and trying to shout us into submission. Also, please focus on a particular topic rather than trying to include "a little lesson on everything". It will make replies easier and help keep the thread moving along.

! Moderator Note We need more focus on the science, and less on disrespect.

! Moderator Note Lose the personal attacks, please.

Please learn what logic is, and not from Mr Spock. Formal logic is an a priori study for maths and philosophy, not an empirical study for science. The word you're looking for is "reason".

Do you think a decent fraction of that knowledge could be presented orally? Do you think some textbooks aren't dry and the readers have context, or do you insist on using such a broad brush? Basically I disagree. I think understanding scales more easily the more knowledge you have to work with. The amount of print directly affects the probability that understanding can happen. Do you honestly think reducing the printed word will increase understanding? Will understanding go to 100% if print goes to 0%? Perhaps you can convince me that I should wait until I meet you face-to-face to gain any knowledge or understanding from you.

And now you've made several words meaningless. Conscious, breathing, alive. If stones breathe, now words like lungs, aspiration, and inspiration are worthless, as are reproduction, growth, and adaptation. This is a classic specious argument. It sounds wonderful until you realize just how impractical and misleading it would be.

But oral traditions didn't guarantee understanding. We've seen that rote memorization isn't the best strategy if you want folks to "get it". But it requires knowledge in the first place, and may not happen even if knowledge is bestowed. There is no understanding without the knowledge underpinning it.

! Moderator Note Best of luck with that. We're a science discussion forum, and won't be participating in your project. Don't post any more links to it, it's against our rules.

Not sure you're doing anything more than thoroughly saturating the fibers before you wash the garment, if it's only water and for that long. If the clothes are heavily dirty, I'd pre-soak using some kind of detergent, but only for about half an hour. That's plenty of time for the surfactants to break up any oils or ground-in grime, and then hold on to both water and dirt so it's washed away. Modern detergents are designed to work with fibers and their colors. Why are you listening to anyone who just tells you it's "not good to do that" without explaining why?

! Moderator Note Less opinion and belief, and more evidence, please. So far, you're just saying "This makes more sense to me than the Standard Model". And please also define what you mean by "different state of consciousness", preferably using mainstream science.

! Moderator Note Please stop making these extraordinary claims without supporting them. Of course we want evidence of these claims no matter what section it happens to be in, it's a SCIENCE DISCUSSION forum. Your vague generalities aren't appreciated at all. If you have evidence to support ANY of your wild claims, post it. You're done being lazy here.

"More than everyting I said/wrote?" = "Every coin has a flip side". Thanks for clarifying. I still don't know what you mean. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it's often the tumor of understanding.

! Moderator Note Listen, our #1 rule is civility. You need to stop making this personal, because it isn't. If you can't attack an argument, don't start attacking people.

Good example of things you say/write that baffle me. I have no idea what you mean by this. I'm sure it would be a good reply to a completely different post. Written down, I can assess stuff like this almost immediately. I assume you put some thought into writing you might not put into talking. I can't imagine having to spend the time physically listening to you say this and then taking more time to figure out what you mean by it.

Absolutely not, but I don't think that's the fault of print. Do you think it would have been clearer to me if you'd spoken the same words to me? I think I'd have been equally baffled.

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please.

What exactly did you say 10 years ago to your friend about that politician? I never heard it so I can't remember, but I'm sure you both remember exactly. OTOH, I have access to many things you wrote 10 years ago. So yeah, really obvious. I think he assumed writing his ideas down fixed them that way permanently, so he couldn't change his mind once he'd written it. Of course we now know, through scientific methodology, that it's possible to write down our best current explanations without cementing them in place. So perhaps Socrates was wrong about this. I assume you're grateful his students weren't so stupid. Or rather it acknowledges that I probably won't ever talk to you face-to-face, again for obvious reasons.

Not clever enough to see the obvious value of preserving the actual words someone once spoke, apparently. Nor clever enough to see that the written word can be dispersed much more readily than passing them down orally, apparently. I think the written word is MUCH more valuable than the spoken word in many aspects. I can practically guarantee it will be the only way you and I communicate, whether that advances our understanding of our available knowledge or not.

While the written word didn't stop anyone from lying, it did make the lies easier to spot. The spoken word allows one to use all kinds of misdirection, as we see throughout history and especially with modern video. The written word allowed us to trust each other better.

Well, the first thing you ask us to imagine is a massive object moving at the speed of light, which is non-physical. Then you talk about velocity as if it weren't a property, but rather a substance. It's easier to imagine things that are possible and physical. Anyway, you get 5 posts on your first day as part of our anti-spam measures, so you won't be able to reply until tomorrow.

Am I missing something? Why would you bring it back here, where it would be really, really expensive nickel-iron, or really, really expensive platinum? I don't have numbers, but terrestrial mining has to be a lot cheaper in almost every aspect. Does not having to pay for mineral rights offset asteroid mining's inherent challenges and their costs, which include identifying and safely bringing the metals back to Earth? We can keep the metal out in space to build HE3 gathering facilities, something we'll need more of for quantum computing and medical imaging. Not sure how I feel about mining the moon for it, but we don't need much to make a big difference and it's in limited quantities on Earth. It makes more sense to bring this back. Anything we don't have to send offworld is a resource we get to keep, so I think it makes sense to use what we find out there out THERE as much as possible. At some point, we'll need the metals from asteroids for more projects out there.

This had to be it. "I didn't spill coffee on the electrode, I applied a caffeine/sugar solution in the hopes of increasing fuel cell efficiency!"

Analogy doesn't help much with this. It confuses things further. Very simply, so simply that it can't possibly be held to any degree of accuracy: the universe was extremely small, the matter in it was extremely dense and therefore extremely hot, and then the universe (which is everything there is) expanded rapidly (and the last point, working backwards, at which we can accurately measure it is what we call The Big Bang). At some point, the density of matter decreased enough to allow space between it to form, and the temperatures continued to fall. It could be that all that matter squeezed so small is similar to what happens in a black hole, but black holes happen inside the universe, and particles that fall inside are measured relative to the black hole, and no velocity can change that. When the whole universe is inflating itself so rapidly though, everything is different because everything is moving and expanding, everything in the universe is participating in the event. And I've probably made it worse.

Mining asteroids makes economic sense only if you leave the metals out there, for use in outer space endeavors. Imagine having tons of metal to work with that you didn't have to bring up from Earth's surface a few kilos at a time at hideous cost.

That's not a level of knowledge, that's an age range. We're a science DISCUSSION forum. We talk about science topics. Videos are difficult to discuss, and take a fixed amount of time to view. We prefer the written word, where we can assess a post very quickly for veracity and accuracy. We can talk about subjects for your channel, but we have no interest in helping you promote your channel, which is usually what people want when posting their own videos here. We would love to talk about Earth Science with you. Watching you talk about Earth Science? Not so much.