Phi for All

! Moderator Note Don't ever do this here again. This is a science discussion forum, and we expect more rigor and intellectual honesty. Since you're leaving, thread closed.

Why should every marginal, extremist viewpoint get equal airtime? I think that's a big part of why the media is the way it is, trying to give the perception of non-bias by forcing all issues to have the same importance. Alex Jones is one of the worst of the non-stop fearmongers who use screaming incredulity to pound out his conspiracies, drowning out quieter voices of reason.

The page gives an abstract, and the link to the article gives you the option to download a friendly PDF on the right side (and other formats).

! Moderator Note It is a hijack to introduce more speculation into an already speculative thread. ! Moderator Note You really need to stop looking at science as opponents fighting. The idea is what's important, and ideas aren't equal. The evidence to support or refute needs to be analyzed. Those who've studied science have a much easier time knowing whether an idea has merit or not. Whatever you do for a living, don't you think you know much more about it than someone who's never done your job before, but only read a bit about it? Would you encourage people to help him with his idea about your job, or would you try to tell them there's nothing to work with there? Don't pursue your idea in someone else's thread. I'll leave this here since you've had some replies, but let's stick to the topic of the thread.

This piece gives a pretty in-depth accounting: https://heavy.com/news/2018/08/white-house-raised-flag-full-staff-mccain/ From the proclamation: The really deep end is Putin's Russia, a place where extremist homophobic racist capitalism is looking mighty nice to many members of the GOP. These are folks who've suddenly realized they don't have to conceal & carry their hatred any more. McCain was like a vigilant sheepdog, and Trump is the cowardly cur that promised to help, but instead has betrayed the flock to the wolves, making them easier to prey on. We miss you already, Senator McCain.

! Moderator Note This is a mainstream section. Please don't EVER make up garbage like this in the mainstream sections. We have students who would like to give the right answers on their tests. If you don't know the answer, ask questions.

The WH lowered their flag for a day and a half, citing a different protocol. Most others will keep the flag at half mast until after the funeral.

Perhaps it's a language problem. For instance, you're using the word "impossible" incorrectly in the above statements. Please calm down. New members only get 5 posts on their first day, to prevent spammers. Come back tomorrow, by all means. And in the future, no moderator makes heavy judgement calls about a thread they're involved in. We have multiple moderators. We like to discuss science too, and are all volunteers, and we try to be as fair as possible. See you tomorrow.

You're still talking about incontrovertible proof. It's important that you understand why this is BAD, really BAD. You're holding science to a standard it was NEVER MEANT TO BE HELD TO! You'll NEVER be satisfied with theory to explain the behavior of our universe until you fix this misconception. In fact, the scientific method is designed to avoid claiming to have "answers". When people think they have some kind of Truth, they stop looking for better explanations, and in the end, science is interested in the best supported explanations. Those explanations, theories, have mountains of supportive evidence, including technology that relies on the accurate predictions we're able to make using the models for these theories. It wasn't considered because it doesn't make any sense to anyone who has studied BBT. The theory begins with the universe in an extremely hot, dense state, and follows the expansion and cooling thereafter. There were no stars in the early universe. It's like asking why there's no cake available before it's been baked. Mmmm, cake.

! Moderator Note Thank you.

I've always used the analogy that science knowledge is like a jigsaw puzzle cut from the multi-layered skin of an onion. It's all very interconnected, and knowledge in one area doesn't necessarily translate to understanding in another. In many cases, there is no simple, easy-to-grasp way of explaining a concept. Science is not as intuitive as many like to think. OTOH, I suppose you could say that there is a simple way for a knowledgeable person to explain science to anyone, given enough time to remove the impeding ignorance. As Itoero mentions, prior knowledge is often required at each step, leading one deeper into the mysteries.

Forget about the concepts of "proof" and "incontrovertible". They DO NOT EXIST in science. Instead, we accept the explanations with the preponderance of evidence as our best current explanations. These are based on mathematical models, and are called theories. This is as good as it gets with science. And if you haven't found enough evidence to support the BBT, then I would suggest you haven't really looked at the BBT. Or you looked at it with the mistaken impression that it offered some kind of 100% solution. That's just not the way science works, and you'll constantly be disappointed and mislead if you keep looking at it this way.

! Moderator Note Moved from Astronomy/Cosmology to Speculations, since you're offering alternatives to mainstream science. To challenge mainstream science, which has the preponderance of evidence behind it (certainly in the case of the LCDM model), your idea needs evidence to support it. It's been my experience that when someone has no evidence except their own "scientific logic", their "theory" becomes mere opinion. Do you have any evidence in support of your idea?

Once you figure out how to keep track of the Joneses, you're going to have to work harder figuring out how to keep up with them.

We can't teach you understanding, but we can provide the knowledge you'll need to work on that subjectively. How does wisdom without knowledge work for you?

The knowledgeable. Join us.

I would argue that, due to the supernatural aspects of most religions, and certainly any of them that use Jesus, it's religion that offers a vague, wandering, unreasonable path to knowledge. Consider that the more a person uses blind faith in an unknowable god as their main way to accept which knowledge to believe in, the farther off the path of reason they wander. Without reason to aim their lives, these people have only guesswork, hope, and firm conviction to lead them. Many of them will actually tell you they're stronger because of this. Reason helps us decide what to do with the information we glean about the natural world. If our aim is to learn the most we can about ourselves and our environments in order to decide how best we can use our lives, then religion is far too subjective and vague (over 9000 sects of Christianity alone), which makes it vulnerable to manipulation, bias, and misinformation. I would advise any young person to insist on going to college to partake of accumulated human knowledge, and bond with their fellow human knowledge seekers. You can always keep an open mind about god(s); just focus on the people in your life until a god actually becomes observable to science. This is the humanism iNow spoke of.

How is the water and land the same? And why don't you take all the sophisticated new species competing for existence into account?

The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason.

! Moderator Note Please, one thread per subject. Use your thread here.

I might be able to devise a good overall strategy, but be unable to come up with the tactics to implement it. Warfare in unfamiliar winter weather comes to mind. If I need an acorn from an oak tree, I may not find it if I only see the forest.

Being "proven" is like being pregnant. It's not a variable state. Once again, you're taking a word that has very specific meaning, and you're loosening its definition to suit your ideas, and in the process you make the word meaningless for the rest of us. "Proven" is automatically 100%, and science doesn't work that way. In case you missed it the other thousand times you've been told this in discussion here.

Wiki says they probably wouldn't last long enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole If you could somehow protect yourself from the effects beecee mentioned, once your hand crossed the EH it has only one path to follow in spacetime, curving extremely radically into the BH (so much that no amount of energy provides a path anywhere else), while the rest of you remains in a far less curved spacetime. The difference in the effects between your hand and the rest of you, the gravitational gradient, is so immense and happens in so little time that instead of ripping parts off of you, your cells would stretch like taffy into spaghettified strands, compressed horizontally from the sides and pulled vertically towards the BH. I'm not sure it's correct to say it happens "in so little time", or if that's confusing. The spacetime curve is so extreme that the path to the BH is inevitable, and the gravitational singularity is fixed as the next part of the future. Does that make sense? There may not be a measurable amount of time it takes to move along the only path available.

! Moderator Note Please stop doing this, we don't allow advertising here. This includes advertising your other threads. Thanks for understanding.

I hope they were all suitably impressed with your badassedness. I bet that felt good! At least you didn't have to pop the escape hatch and climb the cables like last time.