Phi for All

! Moderator Note You can't make up a fundamental unit and talk about it in mainstream science sections. This is clearly speculation, so I've moved it there. Please clarify what you mean by the terms you've made up, since they only make sense to you at this point. Since you've chosen NOT to use mainstream science's explanations and terminology, it's incumbent on you to make sure everyone involved is on the same page wrt the scientific principles you're using. Please provide evidence that supports your insights, and respond to requests for clarity. The shame is not in failure, it's in spending years working on misunderstood problems using misconceptions and inaccurate information. THAT is why you get pushback from scientists when you don't show enough rigor in your methodology.

Phantom5 has been suspended for a week for hijacking threads and posting videos without context after being warned not to do exactly that.

! Moderator Note Nothing has been hidden for any reason in this thread. We never delete posts.

! Moderator Note OK, since the scientific explanations would eventually be overwhelmed by those who have wishful alternatives, we're going to archive this thread at this useful and meaningful point. Merry Christmas!

It seems reasonable to me that early humans encountered many things they couldn't explain, and found that their developing intelligence could imagine solutions that made sense. Those who could anticipate what might happen based on their imagination would seem almost magical. Early hunters who looked out of camp into the night shadows probably imagined lions in all of them, so the hunter who most always picked the right shadow to throw his spear into would be held in high esteem as a mighty protector. He might attribute his special knowledge to a small voice in his head, or he may be revered himself. Either way, imagination led to unobservable forces at work in our world, imo. I think science is like the remodeling of an old house. Where gaps in skill and knowledge in building the original led to the filling in of poorer quality explanations and flat out guesswork, science tries to take a more methodical approach, removing the old and outdated, tightening up the reasoning by removing wishful thinking, and in general try to modernize old thinking by sticking with what we can observe in the natural world. So far, science has had no real problems explaining phenomena naturally, and has been so spectacularly successful in its methodology that we can practically assume a supernatural explanation is unnecessary.

I wanted to point out how people normally disparage another person's intelligence, but you're right, it's all discriminatory since it assumes negative traits about a group of people. I still think it shows how a person is thinking about someone else when they put them down for being part of the opposition (different party, different school, different region, different religion, different lifestyle). And I still think men who look at women as the opposition when it's out of context are practising sexism.

In the OP, Corbin is talking about Theresa May, right? Making an aside to an aide immediately after the PM had failed to address his question adequately? In this instance, adding that she was a woman was superfluous wrt identifying who was being derided. If Corbin was angry about her response, what did being a woman have to do with her perceived stupidity? Shouldn't he be more likely to pair "stupidity" with her being Conservative, or where she's from, or where she went to school, rather than with her gender?

When gender is brought up for no apparent reason, and gets slapped with a negative label, of course it's sexist. If I'm deriding a person's mental capabilities, I have LOTS of great aspects of intelligence to choose from, but gender isn't one that's even applicable. If it's used, why else would you use it if you didn't think adding "woman" made "stupid" stupider?

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations.

It's not an opinion. It's what we observe. I did the easy part of correcting mistakes. I didn't mean to make it "hard" (we attack ideas here, not people). It's all about filling in the gaps in our knowledge with the right things. Evidence, not "proof". All the evidence supports the mainstream view of black holes and time travel. Science isn't about proving anything. It's all about the current best supported explanations.

Black holes are huge masses of matter that have been subjected to immense pressure at the middle of supernova explosions. The forces were incredible enough to degenerate the normal electrons and neutrons in the matter so it collapsed to a black hole state. There is no exit from this state once gravity overwhelms all other forces. The degenerate matter is tiny but still has its original mass, so spacetime geometry near it is extremely distorted. Once you go past the event horizon of a black hole, you have a single, inevitable destination that no amount of energy can change. Matter can't help but move to join the degenerate matter (the singularity). You could argue that once past the event horizon, there is no other future available to you. I wouldn't say white holes are "considered" anything. There's no evidence currently to support their existence. There are some interesting arguments, but nothing approaching a theory, afaik. Rifts are more science fiction than science. A black hole isn't a rift, it's degenerate matter we observe to have extreme gravitational properties. Think geometry rather than holes in space.

! Moderator Note Closing this while we wait for citation. Please contact staff to re-open it.

Critical Stitch is the name of my new rock band.

Luck favors the prepared. --Edna Mode A stitch in time saves nine.

Most of the non-compete agreements I've seen are geared towards keeping workers from taking processes and internal information to a direct competitor. They're usually only good for a couple of years, since most companies grow and change enough to make that info less valuable over time. These were also all agreements for sales positions, which may have completely different parameters. This agreement is attached to a monetary investment in Raider's education. This isn't concern for proprietary information about the company. The owner may not see this as a potential threat from a competitor at all, but rather that he's paying to make Raider a better employee and wants to make sure he continues to be the employer. If he's a good businessman, he'll want Raider to be obligated for as long as possible, to improve the return on his investment. I'm just saying Raider should make sure the clause doesn't restrict him unnecessarily.

This could be part of a larger non-compete clause. You really need to see the legalese on this agreement before you decide. Eight years is a long time for an NCA normally, but I've never signed one related to college tuition before. Remember, this is agreeing that you won't work for any competitors or start a competitive alternative for a period that's half your current lifetime. Make sure you know what you're agreeing to. You need to know how strict this is, and exactly how it's worded. The big worry is that something goes sour/pear-shaped at this place in the next few years, and you're forced to stick with it because you can't take your skillset elsewhere. Make absolutely sure the parameters are precisely spelled out. Lots of boilerplate agreements can be too general, but can be changed if you voice your concerns reasonably. It's all negotiable until you sign your name.

He told me in a PM that, for some reason, he doesn't trust the forum. I'm sure it's an intellectual property concern. It seems clear to me this is a case where some customized guesswork has become firmly lodged in the gaps in the OP's knowledge. I base this on a) the inability to explain it to others in a sensible manner, b) the OP is convinced of a simplistic fundamental interaction that will answer every question, yet can't use it to answer any question, and c) the idea requires different spatial geometry to work, but the OP is asking for a mathematical argument before he can complete his idea?!

This also seems to suggest that "things" exist outside spacetime, in spatial dimensions we don't observe. How do they exist without being subject to the geometry we observe the rest of the universe following? Is there a way to observe them that doesn't involve standard spacetime? Since you won't explain your concept, can I assume you've found some resonance with mathematical ratios and the patterns they pose (humans love a good pattern), and have chosen to force this to be a fundamental interaction upon which the universe turns? Many have suggested similar things, but all fail to support this notion with evidence. Do you have anything that supports your ideas better than the array of theories science has been researching for the last several centuries to explain what we observe? Our basic ToE question is, Can you use your theory to calculate the height of a geostationary orbit? If you can't, current mainstream theory is the winner.

And yet you don't say what this fundamental interaction is, AGAIN. Do you see how hard it would be to figure out what you're talking about? Are we going to have to figure out the right questions to ask in order to gain information from you? This is beginning to sound like you learned SOME bits of science, but made things up to fill the gaps in your knowledge. VERY bad form, since the explanations derived this way make sense only to you. You need to use mainstream science and the scientific method when discussing ideas like this, to make sure your concepts match observation. What does a 4th spatial dimension do, exactly? Do you have any evidence for dimensions above the 3 we observe? And why would light behave differently in higher dimensions? Why don't we observe it behaving in a way that supports your idea?

I don't think anyone here has the time to drag the information necessary for a ToE from you. The only thing that's clear is your lack of clarity.

! Moderator Note OK, that's all we can allow. MasterOgon, in a discussion, especially a science discussion, it's very important to stay on topic, bring any new knowledge you learn with you the whole way through, and let evidence persuade you rather than your emotional desire to be right. You can't keep building with broken pieces. Thanks to Ghideon for providing lots of insight and for filling knowledge gaps nicely. You're a patient person and it's appreciated. Sorry, MasterOgon, but you had five pages to explain your idea. Please don't open any more threads on this unless you reread this one many times, and discover new evidence to support your ideas.

With what exactly?

! Moderator Note Understand better. This is a science discussion forum, and this thread is in mainstream physics. It's not a matter of "dislike", but of meaningfulness.

Raider, I've read that you don't feel you're progressing satisfactorily, and I read that your school isn't willing to do anything further to decrease the time you spend in high school. Are those two things really equal? Progress isn't necessarily about getting something over with quicker. Is there a way your school can challenge you more, give you ways to progress better academically? Is early graduation the important part, or is it getting the best out of your education, or is work more important than either of those?

! Moderator Note Not a member. Perhaps you should link to the position you're questioning, to give the membership a chance to see what prompted your concerns. I, for one, have no idea who you're talking about.