Phi for All

! Moderator Note This is NOT mainstream physics, so I'm moving it to Speculations. It's really doesn't have enough science to survive there either, but you'll get better feedback on some of your misconceptions. Filling in gaps (ignorance) in the pattern of your knowledge is something humans are really good at. So good, that if we don't actually know something, we often make up something pleasing that makes perfect sense only to us. That cognitive bias is one of the reasons the scientific method was developed. It helps us remove as much wishful thinking and emotional guesswork as possible. Anytime you think anything is 100% certain and true, you probably aren't doing science. It's awesome that your brain is so good, but you're driving that Ferrari out in the weeds, dude. You should bring it out on the Autobahn, better known as mainstream science. It's made for Ferraris.

It's not off-topic here, since you're trying to define faith in a way nobody agrees with. Why don't you show "a reasoned approach to showing a higher power could exist"? Why do you just claim it without showing it? Also, please don't redefine "higher power". One of its properties seems to be "can't be observed scientifically", and that's the hard part if you're claiming faith is a reasoned form of belief.

Kim has finally found the dupe he needed, thanks to Putin. Kim is savvy enough to know the instant he pushes his little red button is the end of his regime. There was NEVER any danger he'd launch, but as long as the threat was there, he had leverage. He finally found a gullible, half-assed businessman thinking about beachfront property instead of a political leader thinking about his country, and now he has the respect from a superpower nation his arsenal could never give him.

I can't believe you think I missed that, dimreepr. You don't think we can offer something new and useful to someone interested in astrology?!

To me, this is like saying, "Einstein was a smoker, so that proves that even brilliant people can do harmful things, so why should we all be persecuted for smoking?" It's applying a modern, stricter set of criteria to deleterious behavior from the past, in order to justify it today. It's a fallacious argument.

Why can't you share a single way in which you can take a reasoned approach to show a higher power might exist? Everything we observe so far has a natural cause, so why start guessing about something supernatural, especially when it's not needed to explain anything? You're also redefining "reasoning". It doesn't mean "any way I can figure things out to my satisfaction". Reasoning, ON A SCIENCE DISCUSSION FORUM, requires the use of critical thinking and supportive evidence, none of which you've bothered with in your argument. Science is the BEST, MOST TRUSTWORTHY way to explain nature. Fixed it for you.

Moving the goalposts again. When belief has some reason with it, it's not faith anymore. It's trust, based on reasoned arguments and explanations. Deal with it, trust and faith are both types of belief, and it's important, extremely important, that you know which you're applying. The difference is critical.

You've linked to a description of stellar remnants, and covered ending the fusion cycle by depleting fuel, but I wonder if your group wouldn't appreciate just a bit more about the formation of a BH from that point on, and what energies are at work overcoming degeneracy pressure? Is this being presented orally? Either way, mentioning supernovas should wake up anyone who nods off. Sounds like a fun group, beecee. Enjoy!

That's completely up to you, but I sense vast potential. Welcome, Alextang.

Also, none of these things is a property.

You seem to be purposely ignoring the general argument that you can't redefine words and expect them to have the same meaning to others. When you make up a statement like this, it's no different than claiming "Random choices can sometimes have a specific pattern to them". You may be able to hobble and torture a definition to force it to fit your concept, but in doing so you've driven the meaningfulness from it because now it's not a shared definition anymore. There is a difference in the ways we choose to believe things, and I think a rational person would welcome such a distinction.

Last time I got new tires, I had to listen to one end of a telephone conversation where the guy was explaining how fire was one of the elements. Between that and the ratchet wrenches I was happy to get out of there!

What would you say to someone who had faith that vampires (or unicorns, fairies, or other reclusive and impossible to observe creature) exist in real life because that's the conclusion they've come to? They're using as much reason as you are. What would you say to that person if they came to a science discussion forum and made this claim?

Nothing ever is, in science. But what you've decided to believe in has 0% to trust in. You've simply decided it makes the most sense to you, and now you claim it's the way the universe is. Since you don't appear to value trustworthy explanations, I don't know why you insist on equating your beliefs with anything rational, reasonable, or with any nod to critical thinking whatsoever. It's perfectly OK for you to believe these wild things with only blind faith, you know. But you're wasting everyone's time if you think anyone is going to agree that your beliefs are more than guesswork.

I've seen this bit before! Kim is going to step up, smack the general in the back of the head, and poke Trump in both eyes.

You can't reach valid conclusions about something you can't possibly know (such as the absolute existence of a higher power that can't be observed). Most of the things you claim are impossible to know with ANY degree of trust, by their very definition. You're basically claiming truth because you believe in it.

I'm hearing there are already more first time voter registrations among 18 year-olds than in years past, most likely due to all the school shootings and the Parkland survivor's efforts. Efforts to reduce gerrymandering are gaining momentum. If this keep up, and reduce Republican efforts to keep minorities from voting, I don't think Trump (or Pence if Trump is impeached) will get a second term. The GOP has relied on redistricting and repression far too long, and it will be their undoing. Unless, of course, there's no Democrat on the ballot under 70, who isn't a gun supporter, or a billionaire, or has had an extramarital affair. In that case the new voters may pick an independent, and Trump gets a chance to make America greater.

We always seem to hear about people being interested in ways to justify their abusive behavior.

No, we don't. You're making a generalized appeal to emotion rather than an actual observation.

! Moderator Note If I catch you plagiarizing the work of others again, or quoting without citation, you're going to be suspended. Do NOT steal the words of others. http://www.physics4kids.com/files/mod_quantum.html

I might open a PDF, but it sounds like you want someone to spend time working on your Word doc for you. Why? This is a science discussion forum.

Isn't there also going to be a big difference between people's forearms? Or is this strictly to measure only your forearm? Also, please describe what you mean by "balance point". What is the forearm being balanced on the point of? Finally, why do you want to know this? Is there a practical application you had in mind, to help focus responses?

Those are strawmen dressed in whataboutism clothes! I gave specific examples of why Canada's dairy farmers need to be reigned in. I specifically said he was right about the farmers, not about his fatuous reasons for insulting an ally. It has nothing to do with trade wars, quality, content, or even imported milk. It's the system of price controls and quotas Canada uses to manage dairy supply that's the problem because it raises the price unnaturally to your own countrymen for Canadian dairy products. My point had nothing to do with trade imbalance imagined or otherwise, and everything to do with political clout given to your dairy industry in exchange for their endorsements in trade deals, and other concessions that have squat to do with making dairy products. Again, it's very similar to the mistake we made with sugar in the US. They're too powerful for any politician to tackle, and have been for a long time. If Trump dislikes the protectionist practices, he should start weeding them out at home before criticizing other countries.

Both Russia and China have histories of heavily state-owned and managed institutions. Now both are crushing on private-ownership solutions (although China still maintains it's committed to a kind of socialism), which means funds that used to be controlled by the state are now in the hands of private individuals. Some Russian investors in a position to know claim Putin spent his first years in office robbing Russia blind, using knowledge gained from his KGB experience to make himself the richest man in the country. Where once a communist superpower held the reins, Russia is now controlled by billionaire oligarchs who switched from extremist Communists to extremist Capitalists. Trump likes the all or nothing approach. He's a hammer carpenter, imo. Uses a hammer for everything, best thing for driving and pulling out nails. He's got a way to use his hammer to measure and cut boards, too, and he likes the way it works for screws, glue, and paint too. North Korea has the opportunity here to exploit capitalism to enrich the Kim dynasty and grow his working class like China has. Is it capitalism or communism if the State is a private individual? Wealthy, ruthless dictators are teaming up against Canada, Mexico, and most of Europe, and it seems like it's your publicly-owned institutions that really piss them off most. All your People-driven attitudes, and your insistence that profit shouldn't ALWAYS be the most important thing stand in the way of a few people's agenda to own everything.

Trump's not wrong about your dairy farmers (just in his ignorant, superficially-researched approach). Your agricultural system is kind of borked because of the power your milk producers have, and you're using an antiquated system that hurts your own folks. Trump was right to point some of that out. Canada needs to fix this (not necessarily the trade imbalances). And maybe you will fix it, just about the time the US does the same thing with our sugar producers (who do the same thing your dairy farmers do). Canada has only been in the grip of the dairy lobby since the 1970s, but the US sugar lobby has been around since the early 1800s.