Phi for All

! Moderator Note We need evidence to elevate an idea to where it's worthy of discussion, otherwise it's just guesswork, and that's not how we speculate here. If you can support your speculations, you can open them here so the evidence can be discussed. There are other sites that support wild-ass guesswork. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note The Speculations forum is provided for those who like to hypothesize new ideas in science. To enrich our discussions above the level of Wild Ass Guesswork (WAG) and give as much meaning as possible to such speculations, we do have some special rules to follow: Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either. Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory. The movement of a thread into (or out of) Speculations is ultimately at the discretion of moderators, and will be determined on a case by case basis.

This is a perspective that creates a pressure normal markets can deal with, and responsible leadership can regulate fairly. However, the US arms industry is so heavily protected by extreme, irrational lobbying that they can actually increase sales by running "news" stories about legislators even thinking about regulations. The media responds to every instance, and every shooting causes fear that this time regulation will happen, and the gun folks buy more guns. The media is basically the marketing arm of US arms dealers, protected from the taxpayer's negative perspectives with their own taxpayer dollars, all aimed at keeping the private profits coming full throttle. Another instance of the media taking a minority perspective and elevating it to the importance of the vast majority, and pretending it's a controversy with equal sides.

! Moderator Note Tangential discussion on Young Offenders & the Legal System split to here.

! Moderator Note This needs some science to stay open. Science. Discussion. Forum. Say it with me.

! Moderator Note That was a topic you couldn't support adequately, so it was closed. You don't get to bring it up again, especially to assert the validity of anything else. Knock it off or your stuff will be trashed as off-topic, or we can place you on the mod queue if you don't think you have the willpower to stop hijacking. No need for a response to this in this thread.

??? Are cash or paintings edible? You're being more cryptic than usual. Have it your way though. If food became the basis of our currency, the farmers are now the billionaires. And some of those will be extremists, and will force society to value food above all.

Um. No. The extremist painters, having more currency than anyone else, could fairly quickly disseminate the concept of worth-by-canvas, where the working class can only dream of owning a painting larger than their head. Homes would change so extremist painters could emphasize wall space rather than rooms with a piano, or niches for sculpture. As a capitalist society chooses more and more private solutions, extreme wealth is inevitable without regulation. If we substituted seashells for paintings, people who lived on the coast would suddenly become very wealthy. And some of those would be extremists, and they'd make sure that seashells were valued highly, to the exclusion of any other perceived wealth.

If you're lucky, all art would be included as a valuable exchange currency. However, if we allow the extremist painters to put their minions into positions of power, eventually music, poetry, sculpture, and other art forms will decline in value, and only paintings will be deemed worthy.

I learned nothing. You learned that you're heavily biased towards the explanation that makes the most sense to you (you did learn that, right?). Not a discussion, then, by the definition I gave earlier. Sorry about using such an obvious trap, but did you have to actually jump into it, eagerly? This is the essence of why it's pointless to guess about something we can't possibly know about. The heaven you made up will always seem right to you, better to you, more "logical" to you (as Strange points out, bad use of "logic"). Nothing anyone can say will dissuade you of that. Pointless to discuss it. And if I came up with something as detailed as you did (but completely different), it would make no difference. You wouldn't be discussing it with me, you would be listening to me tell you my fantasy afterlife (which I know you really aren't interested in getting to know, because it completely contradicts yours). You already guessed up the best heaven you'll ever conceive. Anything I could tell you would just be wrong to you. Why would I want to waste my time on that? As a Humanist, time spent guessing on an unfounded afterlife can be put to much better use.

The requirements are spatial rather than temporal. Make some posts in the science sections, 5 or so (I think) will do it. This keeps the ad spammers away.

What we do here is discuss, rather than talk at other people. That usually means an exchange of knowledge occurs that dispels some amount of ignorance for some or all of the participants. We like to learn, this is what gives discussion meaning, and lends a richness to our communications that only humans can achieve. If it turns out that my idea of the afterlife is as fixed and lacking in evidence as yours, what would we be "discussing"? If I claim heaven is like a big buffet-style restaurant, and all the angels bring you soup whenever you sneeze, and the streets are paved with Kaiser rolls, what are you going to say about it that would have any meaning? Is my unrealistic vision of the afterlife any more valid than yours? Are you going to argue that your vision is more "logical"? Making up stories about what an afterlife might be like, and claiming then that you're "almost sure" you're right is NOT what science is about. I don't know why you want to talk about it here, but your concept will NEVER have any scientific validity without evidence.

Many men are now in trouble for skipping step two.

! Moderator Note Sorry, it's against our rules to require members to watch a video. We're not here to promote your YouTube channel, we're here to discuss science. If you want to discuss any science in the video, please type it out so members can quote relevant parts, and give you the feedback you say you want. You can do that in another thread, but I have to close this one.

This really isn't discussable in a meaningful way. It's just you telling us your version of heaven, which is quite different from anyone else's, and none of them have a shred of evidence to support them. Discussing them like we could learn something from them is lunacy. As I've said before, your style is more suited to a blog, or fiction writing, where you can tell the readers the way things are. Here, you're just revealing wishful thinking with no basis in reality, and no concern for critical thinking or reasoned argument. Further, you're forced to make up all kinds of garbage, like Real Time, Lifers, and copies of Earth. You're "almost sure" your wild ass guesswork is true, whatever that's worth. You're trying to force a nature we don't observe into a discussion with science-minded people. There is a way to discuss religion scientifically, reasonably, critically, but this isn't it. Your perspective is subjective, and science is always trying to minimize subjective influences. I don't think we're the site for you when it comes to this type of post. We set the rigor bar high(er than most sites) to attract those who are attracted to science.

! Moderator Note Our rules state that members must be able to participate in discussions without watching videos or going offsite.

This is not the Trash. In science, an educated guess would have some evidence to support it. Skepticism tells us that in the absence of evidence, we must say, "We don't know" and keep looking. It doesn't tell us to use our imagination to make something up that sounds good. I can suppose that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe based on probabilities, and still remain skeptical about anyone's educated guess about specific behavior or traits. This way the evidence is what persuades me, is what I can trust, not the wishful hope of joining a galactic federation, nor the faith that there must be other intelligent life out there.

This is a science forum. Science works really hard to avoid guesswork. And since anybody can make a wild ass guess about a particular phenomenon based on zero evidence, it's really not meaningful to discuss them. There are lots of sites that do so. We (try) to follow a more rigorous methodology, and evidence is the key.

! Moderator Note You're trying to mix this primitivity concept you have with relativity. If you want to continue, I'm happy to move this to Speculations, but your concept isn't mainstream, and this is a mainstream section. I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with this. I can leave this here if you want to continue asking questions. I can move it to Speculations if you want to continue making up your own terms. Or we can put you back on the Mod queue, and you can post whatever you want and we'll decide if it's reasonable. I'd prefer you let me know your choice (please don't explain) either by PM, or by responding with a relevant post (not a response to the modnote).

! Moderator Note If you're going to start speculating and making things up, this thread will be moved from the mainstream section it's in.

! Moderator Note Very preachy, and not at all what this site is about. We're a science discussion forum. Your posts assume a great deal, and offer nothing but opinion offered as reality. Assertions like the ones you make need to be backed up by evidence here, so we can discuss them meaningfully. You should write a blog somewhere else.

! Moderator Note We have no direct evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence, so this can't stay in the mainstream science sections. Also, your posts look more like blogs, where you're telling us how it is rather than inviting science discussion. Soapboxing and preaching are against our rules, so if you can adjust your style to be more conversation-inclusive it will help with responses. Moving this to Speculations. Assertions will need to be backed up with evidence, because science.

He flubbed that speech, imo. I remember the intentional misrepresentation of the spirit of his words, even after they'd been explained. For such a wonderful orator, he missed a golden opportunity to send a message most of us need very badly, that everything we have was made possible by those who went before, and the best things we'll ever have are the ones we make together. You alone didn't build that, it took many people working together.

Well said. Reasoning and critical thinking skills should come first. Once I'm on a reasonable course, then I can allow my passion to take over.

If my cyst had been on the inside of my ankle where I could get to it easier, I would have been successful lancing it myself, but the sac is tough and at a bad angle on the outside of the ankle. And I have no business poking around on my body with a lancet, I've had no training so it's pretty stupid actually. I went to my primary physician to have them lance it, and found out they could only authorize an orthopedic surgery clinic visit. This used to be something nurses could take care of easily without seeing the doctor. They're going to want to wrap bandaging around that wrist, so it depends how high up on your hand it will go. It's on the top of the wrist, right? It shouldn't be a problem with the small stuff like typing and using flatware, and with weightlifting it might hamper any wrist curling motions. As koti mentions, if you get enough friction to cause bleeding, you should stop that particular set until it heals fully.