Phi for All

I completely agree. It's one of the hallmarks of an unreasonable argument. It's lazy, dishonest, confusing, misleading, and unscientific.

! Moderator Note Please don't use arguments from speculative threads in mainstream topics. One unsupported claim isn't evidence for another.

! Moderator Note Please go blog elsewhere. This is a science discussion forum. If you open up another discussion criticizing a different discussion, you'll be leaving permanently.

! Moderator Note Insisting you're right when it's trivially easy to show otherwise is soapboxing, and against the rules. You need to explain and support your ideas rigorously when they conflict with mainstream understanding (it is, after all, a collection of our best current explanations for various phenomena). You've had five pages to do that, and still cling to misunderstandings. Thread closed. Don't bring it up again.

! Moderator Note Not sure where this came from, since the quotes aren't attributed, but this sounds like discussing another discussion. If you can't defend your arguments there, don't open other threads to hedge your failures to persuade. It's an intellectually dishonest practice. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note This seems more like a lecture about an unsubstantiated claim than any kind of news (especially science news). If you have alternative claims to make, please do so in our Speculations section. ! Moderator Note Also, you need to clarify what you want to discuss. Lecturing/soapboxing/preaching are against the rules. I'm closing this thread. When you can explain your idea so others can understand it, you can start another thread. Please support that thread with evidence and clear reasoning.

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?