Phi for All

That's the opposite of what you earlier claimed. People lying in a graveyard are NOT without their physical bodies.

! Moderator Note Without a source for your information, discussion about this becomes conspiracy chasing, and we don't do that here. Without a credible source, your arguments won't hold up, so you need more to keep this open.

I don't think I ever would. Are you redefining the term "person" as "including unobservable and non-corporeal" to fit your argument?

Only if there's an emotional attachment to the idea, or the refutation is a personal attack rather than an attack on the idea. Correcting misconceptions and filling in gaps in our knowledge isn't ridiculous. I don't believe you, sorry. You don't understand German "perfectly" if you can't speak it. My wife is fluent and there are still times she doesn't understand particular words and phrasing. Languages are too complex for the level of understanding you're suggesting. You are engaging in wishful thinking. The symbols involved in mathematics are even more complex. I would consider your claim to understand them all perfectly to be ridiculous. Perhaps this is where you've gotten pushback in the past, not from discussing unsupported ideas.

Refuted isn't the same as ridiculed. Right, so you have nothing from which to make predictions and test them to see if they hold, so you can't say what the temperature is past the EH. The math is a model, and theories are formed around the mathematical model. And theories are the ultimate in science, the highest achievement for any explanation. Mainstream theories are simply the explanations with a preponderance of supportive evidence, so I'm curious what it is you don't necessarily agree with. Which theories have evidence that's better? Sorry, but I don't buy this for a second. If you don't know the math, it's reasonably impossible to "understand it perfectly". Math is the language of physics, so your claim is like telling an Arab scholar you don't speak Farsi, but you understand it perfectly. Sorry again, but I call BS.

! Moderator Note Thanks for the overview, and for starting the thread in Speculations. Our rule 2.7 prohibits advertising your book here, but you've given us quite enough for a discussion. Good luck.

! Moderator Note anne242, I'm moving this thread to Speculations, since it's definitely not a mainstream stance. You can defend your stance with supportive evidence and reasoning. Make sure to address criticism and requests for clarity, to avoid soapboxing on the subject. Everyone will remember that civility is our #1 rule.

You obviously read only parts of what I write, so why should I bother responding to this bullshit claim? You aren't interested in learning anything from me, it seems.

I wasn't talking about science and imagination at all. My comment was about your conflating imagination and religion. Save your straw for other arguments.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion Nothing about creativity or imagination, so he must not have agreed with what you're trying to do. Childish, primitive weakness doesn't sound at all like creativity, imagination. Some forms of spirituality might fit.

! Moderator Note No more links to that website, please. This is a science discussion site, and advertising is prohibited. Discussion of misunderstandings is often fruitful, but in this case I fear more confusion is likely. I'm closing this.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion site. The no-science-under-any-circumstances discussions are taking place elsewhere. Please note this for future reference. Thread closed.

You should drop the concept of "proof" and "proving" unless you're talking about maths or philosophy. There is no "proof" in science, only supportive evidence. Evidence supports whether something exists or not, and the null hypothesis tells us we don't need to invest any trust in explanations that aren't supported. Sure, that means you don't rule out anything you haven't refuted outright, but it also means the best explanations have the preponderance of evidence on their side, so why trust anything less?

I think the opposing side of the spectrum is a denier, not a skeptic. A skeptic would be right in the middle between the believer and the denier, on the fence, waiting to come off the fence on the side with the most supportive evidence.

Don't you want your mistakes corrected? How was Strange supposed to respond? He just wanted to know where you got your misconceptions. He ignored nothing. We CAN'T know anything for certain about the inside of a black hole because the geometry of spacetime is too highly curved around such hot, dense matter. Hawking radiation is all on our side of the event horizon. Nothing escapes once past it, since the insanely curved spacetime inside allows only one inevitable path to the degenerate matter. In essence, since no amount of energy can possibly change your direction, whatever is at the heart inevitably becomes your future.

Oversimplification and ignorance is what ensues when you insist on these false equivalences to redefine known terminology. You do this a LOT.

I'll have to drop this line of argument, now that the coworkers (with you to help them) are using full sentences along with their implied agism. I still hope younger people will recognize what I have, that men in general (to ward off your inevitable subjective examples) have discriminated against women since patriarchies were invented. I don't feel threatened by women telling me I've trampled on some of their rights as a human, and I'm glad there are enough men who recognize the problem that we may be able to move in a better, more accepting direction. You're right, of course. Thanks for the talk; you always make me feel better about my own problems.

I hope your generalization holds true all your life. Obviously, all people are like your coworker. Are you for real? One of the best ways to put someone down is a backhanded compliment. The real haters of this world know this very well. You can always point back and claim it was just a compliment. See Donald Trump for some great examples.

Welcome to Adulting 101. It's now actionable when people offend you, and keep doing it after you mention how offensive it is. Also, "butthurt" is offensive in this context, because it implies an oversensitivity. Do you think women are being oversensitive when their gender is used to beat them up?

I included that in my list of why-would-they. I think it's perfectly legitimate to call someone a kid if you're trying to emphasize a difference in age, unless you're implying something negative. This would include people who call you kid because they knew you when you were a kid. So? My point (stop ducking) was people often use a young age to imply a "kid" is less than a full human/worker/person. If you were older, how would they imply that your intelligence and expertise were in question? As it sits now, they can just keep calling you "kid" and hope the negative connotations are picked up on.

They just might be. Unless you look like you're twelve, a man your age is almost fully grown, might need to shave, and is just a year short of being able to serve in the military. Why would anyone call you a kid unless they were either highlighting a disparity between your ages, or were reminding you of your age (for some reason), or they were trying make you seem less of a person because you're young? Do you really believe it would be to identify who they're talking about? I'd be willing to bet there are older people where you work that see you as a threat. A young man with a fresh education could easily overstep their boundaries if they aren't put in their place with a few well-placed "kids" and a "youngster" thrown in every now and then. Just to remind everyone of the obvious, that you lack experience and clearly aren't to be taken as seriously as someone older.

I thought about that, but I think "dude" is the word that fills that role. "Guy" is still masculine, in the US at least. Words do change. In the US, at least in my area, if you call somebody "pal" it's most often sarcastic. They've probably just done something no "pal" would ever do. But I think women have taken it over, using it to refer to "gal-pals".

Not at all. It'd be like me handing you a lollipop to show what an immature "kid" you are, to put you in your place. That's what we've been really talking about, despite your attempt to mischaracterize it in straw.

Please do so. I like to know where I make my mistakes. If there was no reason to single out your gender, I should have said "person".

OK, you're starting to redefine what it means to be conscious in order to force your ideas to fit. That should be a big red flag that maybe you've drifted too far from what we observe. I apologize, but I find myself unable to follow your meandering, hopscotchy thoughts. I have no idea what you meant with the bubbles and the Pokemon references. I understand that you think it seems like the universe has something directing it, and I'm going to leave you to pursue your wild guesses without me. I've found a great deal of meaning and knowledge in science, and what you're talking about is NOT science. It's not trustworthy, and frankly it makes me a little sad that you're wasting your time on things you can't know. Thanks for your time.