Phi for All

That's quite a supernatural leap. There are much more rational explanations.

! Moderator Note This style of ignoring what people say about your assertions so you can make additional assertions without supportive evidence isn't conducive to discussion. If you can't take the comments on board, perhaps you should start a blog on a different site. Start engaging with substance and rigor or this thread will be closed.

Untrue. But you know we'll be asking for supporting evidence. Is this what's holding you back from presenting your speculation?

There are oscillating universe theories like this. I don't know that they necessarily agree with any multiverse theories. The Big Bang may not be never-ending, but it is still going on right now. Wouldn't it be easier to drop the oscillating universe and the multiverse angles, and concentrate on how you get energy (not power) from a black hole?

The big reveal? Just a few sentences describing your idea, along with some evidence that supports your stance, should be enough to persuade anyone here if you have some good arguments. You make it sound like you're doing a magic trick to fool us. Soapboxing is simply stating the same thing over and over without responding to calls for clarity, or answering questions, or adjusting your concept when a portion of it is shown to be wrong. In science discussion, it's too frustrating trying to talk to someone who is firmly convinced but has nothing that convinces others. If you have evidence for your stance, just put it out there. No need for a big reveal unless it's a trick. Everybody here is willing to be shown a great argument, and evidence is the key to any scientific position. The two theories you've mentioned have mountains of supportive evidence from multiple disciplines, and verified by countless experiments. It's dangerous walking around with loaded questions like that.

I just saw an oceanographic special last night where a guy claimed the pain from being stung by a stingray made him, for the first time ever, think about taking his own life. He couldn't imagine being able to survive it, so why not end it quickly? It's got to be bad pain when you start thinking about death the same way you think about removing a bandaid.

It's definitely not that black and white (like most complicated things). When we define our terms, like the Everything in Theory of EVERYTHING, it's very specific. Everything is... everything. All of it. When we're defining terms, precision tells us in what context the word is used. Take the term "white". You wouldn't call it your "white" shirt if it had a white and red checkerboard pattern on it. I don't see where your health problems are relevant. It certainly doesn't affect the parts of your argument that don't persuade. If you make a bad argument here, please understand that we care enough about you to correct your misunderstandings, if you have any. That's the kind of support we're happy to give, since it's been given to us all at one time or another. If by "less crappy" you mean "people will simply agree with what I say", don't blow out the candles. We enjoy science, and it has some standards that need to be addressed. Happy birthday, btw. Great age, 42.

I'm with studiot on this one. Using evolution instead of development (or something else) to describe geological processes is misleading, just like insisting that "proof" also means less than 100% proven.

Anything more precise on marination time and temperature? Some animals achieve superiority by being delicious. Cats will never make it to a trillion years, because of the hairball-on-the-carpet-NEXT-TO-the hardwood-floor behavior gene, imo.

No, it's a definition, not an opinion. Why do you think there couldn't be an overarching theory that connects what we know now with what we've yet to discover? Why is it a romantic idea?

And give me a nice caramelization? I also find a bit of lemon/orange zest makes a cow even more superior.

That makes a pig superior. I think marinating in olive oil, balsamic vinegar, garlic, and marmalade makes a cow superior.

Please, can you go into a bit more detail on the bolded bit? Are you talking about the current state of the observable universe, or specifically humans? This all seems like a misunderstanding of definitions. A ToE is just that, it's an all-encompassing model that could be used to explain all we observe, and we could use its predictive power to work out anything we ever encountered. If we could simply combine some of our current best theories into a ToE, we would have done it. We don't have all the pieces of all the layers of the onion yet. Our current explanatory power is pretty amazing. The LCDM model's maths can come to within a tiny fraction of a second of the start of the rapid expansion we call the Big Bang, but not all the way back. In science, we make a distinction between the Big Bang event and the theory that explains it, the same as with evolution and its accompanying theory. The Big Bang and evolution are happening right now. If you take the time to really dig deep into either of the theories we have, it becomes evident pretty quickly that there's no way they could NOT be happening. Evolution is a fact, and the Theory of Evolution is an ongoing, constantly-updated explanation based on current best evidence. Same with the Big Bang. We know it happened, and the theory we have explains it as best we can. As others have mentioned, there are things we can't reconcile with current theory. We know a LOT, but not enough for a ToE. The initial reaction you're getting is because what you suggest won't work on a pretty fundamental level. You're trying to tell an American football team how to play better but it's obvious you don't know that the ball isn't round and they're allowed to touch it with their hands. Sorry if it seemed hostile, but nobody wants you to have any misconceptions that you waste your time building upon. We regularly hear about people who study for years based on a lack of knowledge. We always assume that's why folks come here to discuss science as part of a rigorous methodology.

! Moderator Note Laszlo V, in order to avoid pages of what-on-Earth-are-you-on-about?!?!? replies, will you please post a MUCH more precise description of what exactly you have evidence for, and what you wish to discuss? If you have evidence of something, everyone would appreciate it if you could present it now, but first explain what it's evidence of.

This right here is why I think you're wrong. You take a solid definition of proof (100%) and then decide to also use it to describe what science looks for (best current explanation). You insist it means both things, and to me that muddies the water unnecessarily, and robs a great word of its clarity. As far as others using it in papers, I also blame lazy definitions. Perhaps they don't use "theory" because so many folks like you insist that it can also mean something else, in this case "something I dreamt up while showering".

We're the only species on Earth that can leave the planet to spread life elsewhere, so that seems worthy. The really difficult part is uniting as a species before we attempt this. If we still think in partisan terms about our goals in space, I think we're in for some major woe and misery. I'm not sure how to get us all thinking about ourselves as intelligent, cooperative, communicative humans from Earth trying to do the outrageous collaboratively. Maybe that's our first goal, realizing how much smarter we are together. Embracing the diversity is the genetically intelligent thing to do.

! Moderator Note This strays significantly from mainstream physics, so I'm moving it to Speculations. Please provide some evidence to support your explanations and arguments. This will help raise them above mere guesswork.

But when tiling a house, subflooringly, it's important to corner registers. And after grouting the flat surfaces, corners are much more fun since you get to take out your caulk and get lost in a spiralling rhythm. You don't want to know the truth about corners.

The sheet will stretch, so you need to calculate the bend allowance.

You're looking a great deal farther down the road than he usually does. He prefers a crystal ball to binoculars. Everything he does is to make "now" great for himself, which he thinks automatically makes it great for you too. It seems totally in character that he would assume you'd be honored to have a free message from T himself. When I saw the title I was kind of hoping that this thread was going to be about a new Twitter Defense System, a sort of anti-tweet lie detector for reasonable people.

! Moderator Note I split your post about Typhoon Manghkut to its own thread. Please use that to discuss this different storm in a different part of the planet.

You say this, and yet I doubt your sincerity. You still seem to rebel against the idea that "proof" isn't what science is looking for. I think you still believe this: I've lost track of the number of threads where people explained the reasoning behind theories and why the methodology looks for the best supported explanations, and yet you opened this thread to repeat your belief. You seem to really want to believe things can be proven. Maybe you could explain why?

Terrorists want to make Americans forget about the landslide victory over Clinton, and the record-breaking inaugural attendance. Great new system for reaching out each week to remind us. Make America Gag Again!

I missed where iNow insulted your character. Perhaps you're being a bit thin-skinned for science? Expressing his opinion that certain of your behaviors makes you look foolish is hardly a personal insult. A character insult would be to call you a fool. His comments have been in the spirit of "Attack the idea, not the person" that we try to adhere to on these forums. I explained why there was nothing objectionable, and the mods here try not to make judgement calls on posts in threads we're involved in as a member. See how you changed iNow's words into a personal insult, and made it worse by using fake quote marks, like he really said that? He was commenting on your arguments and behavior, but you've made it personal. It's possible to do something foolish without being an overall fool, you know.

I don't know about wasting the land on these things, but you've got a good point. Obviously grapes, canes, beets, and feed grains can't be grown on scrub land. I like the argument that sugars, alcohol, and dairy are health risks just like eating meat, but at least free-range meat takes advantage of land the others can't use.