Phi for All

I've gotten in the bad habit of ignoring the incessant interjections of your bizarre pet quasi-religi-science into everyone else's threads, but occasionally feel the need to ask you to please stop. All the trains can't run on your track, so please stop trying to switch them over.

Right here, this is where you're the MOST wrong. "That part of science"? Doesn't. Even. Exist. If you take anything away from this site, please understand that science NEVER tries for 100% proof. It's satisfied with the best supported explanations which either become falsified or strengthened over time (the ones that continue to be strengthened become known as theories), as long as those explanations follow a methodology that keeps them as free as possible of wishful thinking and cognitive biases. Also, if you go back through the thread, you'll see multiple instances where you're arguing at strawmen perversions of the scientific stance. Many people have called you out on it, but you continue to build your whole argument on positions nobody here holds. If you can be intellectually honest with yourself, you should remove those parts of your rant, and you'd see if falls to nothing.

WheelBarrow has been banned after spending some unsuccessful time in the moderation queue. Some posting styles are inconsistent with science discussion, but may resonate elsewhere. Good luck elsewhere, WheelBarrow!

I've seen this so many time in the last decade here. Popular science tries to make discoveries exciting for those who don't already think science is exciting, and they often emphasize the wrong aspects. People who didn't study science in school read popular science and a vague pattern begins to emerge. They sort of get it, and their imagination starts supplying wishful patchwork explanations to stitch their knowledge together, which requires that science "not understand" much of what they're talking about. They get the idea that everyone can have their own theories that are just as valid as anyone else's. Eventually they stop reading anything that might correct their misassumptions, in favor of the melange of misunderstanding that follows their own internal "logic" and makes perfect sense to only them.

Listen, please. This is a bit silly. You've shown that the above statement is far from true. You don't need to be defensive about ignorance in a particular topic, you just need to do everything in your power to banish it. Pretending to already have the knowledge teaches you nothing. This is a place for questions about science, and discussions shouldn't reinforce bad habits. Science is perfectly fine saying "We don't know", but NOT about things we do know quite a lot about. The fact that YOU don't know it shouldn't be a sign that nobody does.

If you "totally agree" with swansont, you should drop the "most likely", since he didn't say that. We DO have science to validate that dark matter does not interact electromagnetically. This is the behavior that is observed, and why it's called dark. Also, science doesn't "prove" anything; that's a common misconception. Science gathers information in order to form the best supported explanations, and the best of those are called theories. Nothing is ever proven, but when observation is consistent you can make predictions that are the practical equivalent to proof. From Wikipedia: I think people on a science site will always try to debunk bad science. It also doesn't seem honest that you're arguing for bad science but claiming not to support it, and also not studying the basics of what you're arguing for. It was obviously a scam to rip people off selling snake oil colloidal gold cures, it's not a theory, and it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with mainstream science. I think you're the only one here who is presently unaware of the science involved. Sorry, but that's what I observe.

I heard swansont drives a brand new Heisenberg, and it doesn't even have a speedometer, for uncertain reasons.

Such misleading vividness! Shocking! Impossible! It's such a disservice to science when authors feel compelled to embellish like this. "Jumped into the hype"? Good grief, why can't people understand why such emotional garbage attached to a scientific discovery creates unnatural skepticism (as opposed to the healthy kind)? I think this is one big reason we see so many perpetual skeptics who never get off the fence. To recap: Science good, absolute-knowledge.com bad.

! Moderator Note Jack, Jack, Jack. It's not allowed to use one unproven speculation to support another. It leads to circular reasoning, and it's extremely frustrating to discuss any of the concepts with you when you seem to be fixated on something you can't explain well to others. I have to shut this thread down. Please don't refer to your speculative cosmos in any thread other than its own.

To save it from a long, slow death by killing it instantly. Mercy fission.

! Moderator Note This is unacceptable soapboxing if you don't answer the questions people are asking you. Pointing people at a link is not the same as responding to specific requests for clarity. Please go back through the thread and answer these requests. You are wasting everyone else's time by not supporting your assertions.

Iirc, nitrogen has less problems with condensation, and it leaks less than oxygen. Helium will have problems staying inside the tires, and won't do much to decrease weight.

Not sure you need all that. The effect can be repeated in other ways. I've set my phone down on my knee while playing a game with screens that shift to the side, and my mind is so convinced the phone is falling off my knee that I'll move to compensate. Another variation is sitting in the grocery parking lot when the car in the space next to you backs out, and you jab the brakes because you think you're the one moving. They mention the vestibular sense, but I think the key ingredient here is the interaction with your peripheral vision. The scope out at the edges of your vision isn't particularly well focused, and color sense is poor, but it's designed to pick up movement, and it seems to translate instantly into a reaction from us; we duck, we step back, we turn our heads to look, we grab things that might fall or shift.

Isn't fire or lightning an emergent event brought about by interaction with other unrelated things?

Nobody is talking about things you offered as opinion. I'm talking about the assertions you've made, and the requests for clarity about them that you've ignored. See what I mean? You didn't address the call for clarity, you just plowed right over it. And that's the way you've been responding to anyone who questions your concept. Here again you fail to address the criticism, and it's even mentioned that you misinterpreted what was said. You never cleared this up, but instead went on to claim: "I highly doubt anything you could say would change my understanding of that, though I am keen to hear what you would suggest. I suppose you have said all you want to on the subject though -- I understand your position." Clearly, you don't understand the position of your critics, and have no intention of letting any of their reasoning penetrate your current understanding. You are, in essence, soapboxing your idea on a science forum.

I prefer to use my passion to bolster my critical thinking. I think it's important to use reason first, so you can trust the explanations you believe in, and then become passionate about THAT. You gotten nothing but "intellectual countering" (I don't quote to show I'm offended - I quote to show these were your words) from the thread so far, but because you're only responding passionately, it's hard to defend against the reason others are using. I think you've unnecessarily put up a fence between you and us folks. This is a science discussion site. Isn't that why you came here, to discuss your idea with people who've studied science a lot more than you have? I'm not a professional, but you've had responses from working scientists who follow scientific methods on a daily basis. I don't understand why you'd want to come here to discuss science if you think of it fundamentally differently than the rest of the people who study it. Science is one of our greatest tools because it provides consistency and predictability, so of course we're going to apply that filter when analyzing your idea. You asked for our thoughts, and the consensus was that you hadn't adequately considered specific details in supporting your argument. Now you seem to be saying it's our fault for not understanding you because you view the world in a better way. You're bemused that we're promoting science? Do you see why there is some confusion here?

Except it's not "the contrary view". I don't even have to claim natural skepticism. You obviously have a difficult time explaining what you mean, but what does come through seems to have little evidential support beyond your assertions and incredulity. I don't need "the contrary view" to see you aren't meeting the kind of criteria needed to advance a scientific idea. Assuming we're all just being naysayers doesn't help you support your position, it just makes you keep mentioning it unnecessarily. Your reasoning is what is being attacked here, and those who are have explained why and where the problems lie. That's not a contrary, kneejerk response. "We folks" aren't going to fall for you playing the "you're so hidebound" card. Please respond to the criticism, and not the critics.

! Moderator Note Instead of continuing to claim Strange is misrepresenting your words, can you PLEASE take him up on his offer to correct the specific mistakes?

Unfortunately, you're using this as a definition for "logic", and then assuming what you've done is "a logical progression", when it's really just something that only makes sense to you.

So your skepticism about genetics is an acceptable enough counter argument against selective forces wrt ESP? Incredulity vs theory, really? Even if it required genes from both parents, over time we'd still see measurable differences, if you define ESP in common terms and don't move the goalposts to claim ESP would have "no consequences for them".

! Moderator Note ... and as the chopper's occupants rip the cords on their chutes and waft safely groundward, they try to put some closure on their ideas in the short time they have defying gravity.

Example, ESP dude picks up a stone carving painting purported to be from an Old Master and gets knowledge about person carving painting it. If dude's a buyer or a curator or art critic (dude would gravitate to something like that, yes?), dude gains advantage in knowing it was painted last week in Hoboken by a person named Gopher. Very useful in daily survival imo. I want to point out again that you're claiming ESP may exist in a meaningful way, but not so meaningful that it can be observed. I think the evolution argument is a sound one, and you seem to be downplaying the power of the ability you claim exists in order to avoid addressing it. Edit to add: I think I first saw the ESP vs Evolution argument from John Cuthber, so credit due. The reasoning is very persuasive.

And the degree to which proponents claim ESP is effective automatically refutes the claim. The better you can read the minds of others, the more benefit you gain from the ability, and the easier it would be to detect. The only ESP currently possible would be at a level too low to be detected by experimentation, and at that point, is it really the ESP Russell Targ is talking about?

That's not the point of my example. The point is using the extremely deep predictive power of one of our best researched theories to show that, if an improved form of communication/sensory cognition was introduced into a population, the benefits it would confer on a species with an already impressive communicative capability (the best on the planet, one can argue) would be easily detectable. We've been testing for just such things, and even a small ability should be measurable by scientific standards. We still don't find anyone who seems the least bit consistent in manifesting this behavior. You don't need archeology. Evolution, the changes in genetic traits within a population over time, shows us that traits that give huge advantages for survival are more likely to be passed along to the next generation. I don't need to show how ESP got into our genes, I only need to look for its increasing influence from generation to generation. And I can't find it, nobody has been able to, and they've tried very hard. The way I've heard ESP defined, it would seem to confer some knowledge of what another person was thinking. Humans have evolved high intelligence through a variety of combined influences, and this has led to extremely sophisticated capabilities in cooperation, communication, and the use of tools. If genes that allowed a person an even higher level of ability were selected for for even a few generations, how could that NOT confer an enormous advantage? If ESP isn't going to give us an enormous advantage, why is everybody so excited about the prospects?

! Moderator Note Moved from Theoretical Physics to Speculations due to the non-mainstream content and the as-yet unsupported assertions. Please read the special rules for this section, and try to support your idea with actual evidence. Please respond to member requests for clarity, or the thread goes in the Trash.