Phi for All

So people should just not study, and be evenly ignorant?

Why hasn't your model been tested?

How would YOU propose people learn complex, interlocking fields of study?

You begin to see the problem with your approach? You're at the mercy of people who studied this stuff to tell you if you might be onto something, but you're rejecting what they're telling you because you want to be right about it. Your methodology is fatally flawed, and the sooner you fix it the better your whole perspective will be. You're assuming this all happened based on a story Gleason's wife wrote for the National Enquirer? Snopes says there's no evidence, so why believe it so completely the way you seem to? That's not very rational. This is kind of a red herring, you know. You wanted to speculate on a possible alien propulsion system, which was shown to have flaws. Trying to defend your belief in ETs isn't necessary, not for this thread.

! Moderator Note Religion is off-topic in the mainstream science sections. You've been told that before. I see a mandatory vacation in your near future if you keep it up.

! Moderator Note Hey, one speculation at a time. Please don't introduce a religious argument into the scientific one, or this discussion will be worthless. If you want to discuss something religious, put it in the proper section.

Do you feel like you've learned anything because you leapt? Or did you learn what you learned because you were forced to go back and walk carefully over the explanations you were given in order to reach this conclusion: It seems to me like the leaping led you back to where you started. Also, leapfrogging will keep you from learning to drive that car you can't start that you want everyone to ride with you in. Just sayin'.

interested has been banned permanently for an inappropriate attack on a fellow member, on top of past suspensions. Remember, if you find yourself posting foul language, you probably aren't attacking an idea.

Pretty sure that's EXACTLY what we've been doing here. Why do you think the idea is plausible after so many reasons why it's not were given? You're bitching about why nobody wants to ride in your shiny new car, but the problem is you haven't gotten it to start yet, so where would we go anyway?

This, THIS sentiment, which I hope is still held around the world others like you MigL, is what the Cheat-O can NEVER appreciate. It's numbers only to him, and the Russian oligarchs have lots of zeros for him to play with.

! Moderator Note No more of this. We don't allow advertising here. You agreed to this when you joined. And stop hijacking other people's threads with your pet idea.

This is always the ultimate goal of our Speculations section. We have a process for moving a thread from Speculations into the appropriate mainstream section, but nobody can ever meet the requirements. The maths are usually the missing link.

The chip on your shoulder is causing you to react emotionally to every reply. Mainstream science is simply the best we've got, waiting for something better to come along. IT'S QUESTIONED ALL THE TIME. That's how science progresses. But the new ideas have to be better than the old ones, Sam, and you haven't shown that. Not even a little bit. And you've shown some misunderstandings as well, so that's why the mainstream is still the mainstream. It's got the evidence behind it. That's what your problem is, lack of evidence. So please, stop with the scientists-are-hidebound garbage. There's no evidence for that, either.

You're doing it the practically impossible way. Your misunderstanding of how microwaves work, how long did you work using bad information? How quickly did you banish your ignorance when MigL gave you some structured direction? That's how education works, and why leapfrogging is an immature wish. Do you want a pony too? Isn't this a lot like trying to explain how baseball works without knowing the rules of the game? You spend your time jumping up and down, insisting you know a better way to keep the other team from scoring, until a player gently points out you're not allowed to tag someone out by throwing the ball at them. This isn't a trip where you can decide to fly instead of drive. You really need to look at the scenery along the way to understand how you got where you are, and where you need to be to get where you're going.

Humanism allows us to focus on the value of the information we get studying evolution in our various environments, without either anticipating or requiring god(s) to interact in observable ways. Critical thinking takes precedence over superstition, but god(s) aren't denied agency, and are free to become observable actors in those environments. It's not so much a belief in god(s) as it is leaving an empty chair at the table, allowing one to show up if she so chooses. Until then, evolution is much more interesting.

They aren't inane, they're just not discussion worthy. They're more suited for a good browser. Perhaps when the OP learns more about the subject, he/she will bring up something interesting about it to discuss with others.

The various manufacturers would be better sources for this information.

Another ironic thing about this is that AFTER you leapfrog over the learning process, most explanations just sail right over your head.

It's an affectation implying old-timey common sense. Like claiming to be skeptical ALL the time.

It would be more help to humanity as a whole if you could invent a surge protector for irony meters.

That's not an argument I can address for what I'd assumed were obvious reasons, but it sounds like a deflection, or red herring, anyway. It doesn't tell me what you do to make your reasoning more trustworthy, and doesn't present me with any evidence that I might analyze to support your arguments. All the things you mention are far too subjective and open to interpretation, especially when you use limited analogies and redefined terms to explain a phenomenon. They make sense to you, because you made them up. Part of science is being able to show evidential support for your ideas, so they become more than just guesswork. You need a more rigorous methodology in order to make assertions the way you do. Those are your words, your strawman. I would say, mainstream science is the best available explanation we have, pending better information. "Always" and "correct" are NEVER, let me repeat that, NEVER part of the consideration when you're doing real science. Ditto "proof". It all about the explanation that has a preponderance of evidence you can trust. I hold no delusions about how my mind works. It's subject to SO many emotional biases and corruptions. I have to work rigorously to avoid the kind of faith/hope/wishful thinking you seem to embrace as being better than science. I have to avoid letting my subjective self cloud what can be learned from observing the natural world with what I wish it could be. I have to do a better job of maintaining objectivity because I'm looking for the best available explanation instead of fooling myself that there are "answers" I can trust out there.

Mainstream science is the benchmark though. It's a collection of the best supported explanations about the natural world, theories that actually work and have the preponderance of evidence in their favor. Evolution is a fact, and the theory behind it is one of the most tested in history. How do YOU test your ideas to remove your own prejudice, which is quite high, as others have noted? How do you know you aren't just making a wild guess? I feel this way about you, so maybe we should all agree to be more civil?

I understand how it makes you feel better to think you're being repressed. But I have to ask, why is being wrong unacceptable?

When we ask for supporting evidence, we want something more substantial than your chain of reasoning. Without evidence, your concept is just guesswork, something you've designed to make sense only to you. You've redefined certain terms, and expanded on a limited computer analogy to base your idea in something comfortable, and now you're asserting that you're "proving" that your idea is true. That's not science. You've simply found a pattern in computers that you're forcing to fit onto the human mind. It makes sense to you, therefore it seems "logical", and anyone who can't see it is unenlightened. Again I have to say, you aren't the first person to misunderstand science in the pursuit of knowledge. You have to be willing to have the patience to observe reality, and not just fill in gaps in your knowledge with stuff you made up.

Have you checked out alcohol inks? They're used with metals, and there seems to be a variety of colors available. Perhaps you can get the effect you want with a normal electric engraver, with the lettering highlighted by alcohol ink coloring. I've never seen a product that can engrave and color at the same time. Inks and rapid reciprocation sounds pretty messy.