Phi for All

Healthcare is one of the worst. We also pay more for infrastructure projects and construction in general, mainly due to nationalists like Butch insisting we only use American companies, which removes the competition that might lower the price. From what I've read, foreign firms have been bidding on US construction projects and consistently coming in as low bidders, but they lose out to more expensive US firms. And I can't tell you how much money we'd save if we stopped driving on asphalt the day it's put down. Germany knows this, most of Europe as well, and they pay less for better roads. Our roads are almost always in some state of "shit" and need repairs every two years. Our corporations and many of the most ruthless wealthy folk think tax revenue is for them to play with to create more opportunities for wealth. At what point are we going to realize that tax revenues do more good being used for the other 98%, and that giving it to the wealthy hasn't worked out at all, not even a little bit?

And this is just one example of something we weren't supposed to know about. There are thousands of them in our daily lives. It's why we pay more for EVERYTHING in the US, whether it's healthcare, an office building, or something simple like sugar. And it's getting worse all the time. As the extremists look for fractions of a percent more profit for themselves, capitalism chokes us all with this disparity. Time is critical when it's about paying more for convenience, but time means nothing if it's you waiting for the cable guy. Even our lives are considered cheap when the cost-analysis folks sharpen their pencils. Life is precious when you're paying to protect it, but it's pretty cheap if it's just another capital resource.

As matter is forced to become more dense, it heats up due to the pressure. The singularity at the heart of a black hole is extremely dense, and though no light can find it's way out of the time trap, we suspect it's extremely hot as well. As I mentioned in my last post, a neutron star is extremely hot, and that's a step less dense than a black hole, so there's no reason to think it has no heat. There's only heat, and degrees of it. There's no measurement for "cold". And you moved the goalpost by stating "to us as humans". I made no such distinction. You've definitely picked up many misconceptions. And you seem pretty adamant about keeping them, too. Twice now you've repeated misinformation that I corrected, and I'm certainly far from the most knowledgeable scientist here. I know you came here to teach, but since problems have been brought to your attention, can you change course and learn instead?

This is more extremist capitalism. These days, it's all about disparity. Anything a corporation does or makes for you is considered valuable, while anything the consumer does is practically worthless. The money you spend is negligible, but the money they spend is dear. Your time is inconsequential, their time is gold. The products are fabulous and worth every penny, until you buy it and then they hammer you about replacing it with a new one. You're worth whatever they want to sell you, but you aren't worth paying corporate taxes to support healthcare that might keep you alive. You should pamper yourself and build a swimming pool while they skip out on taxes that might pay for a public pool that many could use. For corporations, you have to force them to participate in the non-profitable side of their businesses. They benefit heavily from being allowed to operate a charter. Regulation isn't a dirty word.

You should study nuclear fusion, in particular how a main-sequence star like ours burns its fuel. Not sure what you mean by slow down. When our sun burns up all its hydrogen, it will start burning all the helium it's been fusing together. And didn't I mention that our sun CAN'T go supernova? Pretty sure I did. It's not big enough. No supernova, no black hole. And you can't know anything about the temperature of a black hole, but we certainly expect it to be very hot, as anything that dense would have to be. Neutron stars aren't as dense, but are incredibly hot and give off light as x-rays.

I'm not sure why you think this. The Big Bang Theory describes the expansion and cooling of the universe from an earlier hot, dense state. The universe is NOT "heating up rather than cooling down". Back up. Nobody is asking for experiments, we're correcting misconceptions right now before we try to build anything new. This is a science discussion site. No offense, but go blog somewhere else. No soapboxing allowed, thanks. What?! They're noticeable to anyone who has studied science. Ah. Welcome to science, where belief can be broken down to faith (believing without questioning), hope (guessing about nature), and trust (methodically and critically examining every phenomenon for the best current explanation). We prefer trustworthy explanations to guesswork or blind acceptance. I think you came here because you wanted to see if you're close to being "right". I hope you can appreciate that discussing science helps remove our ignorance about it. There is a lot of popular science which is forced to sensationalize and abbreviate its message for the average reader, and this work often creates more problems than it teaches good science. And much of what you posted isn't really up for debate. Science doesn't look for proof as much as it looks for supportive evidence, and we have mountains of evidence supporting BBT and other physics models. The question is, can you see this as constructive criticism by those with more knowledge, or can you only see mean people disagreeing with your "beliefs"? You know, the BBT with its attendant LCDM model is perhaps the most elegant theory we have, so I'm curious why you don't think it's a good explanation. Did you actually study it before you pegged it out the window?

You start badly. The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion. Further, you're misusing a lot of standard science terms, like "element". Normally, we'd move this to Speculations, since you aren't discussing mainstream science, but that won't help because of the misconceptions. It can't stay in Philosophy because it isn't really. It looks like a big old wild guess, which you've thought about a lot but can't support with evidence. We don't discuss those, since anyone can guess, and this is a science discussion site. I suppose we can move this into the hard science sections and let the members correct your mistakes, but I get the feeling you might resent that. You seem to think you know a lot about science, but your foundational knowledge is suspect. You're going to get a LOT of pushback on this, so I wanted to warn you. And please correct mistakes people point out before continuing with more. There is no Cold. Heat is measurable by many scales. We know from observation (and the maths) that this isn't true. Our own star would have to be 8 times more massive to go supernova. It will end its life as a white dwarf.

More brainwashing. Corporations have lots of costs of doing business, including wages. They pass along costs they can get away with, but even when Eisenhower set the highest marginal rate in the 90% region, it didn't suddenly mean consumer goods became unaffordable. In fact, the 50s were about rampant consumerism and competitive pricing. So I don't understand why you preach the GOP garbage instead of seeing with your own eyes what really happens. It's like the arguments against increasing the minimum wage to $15/hour because it would make the hamburgers cost too much. In reality, it would cost about 17 cents more for a Big Mac, but would allow employees to earn a living wage from a single job. Similar increases could happen in a number of industries without seriously affecting market share. Part of the problem is the Trump Effect, but I also think many too many people only listen to sources that agree with them. Reinforcement is critical to propaganda campaigns, and these algorithms that only feed us what we like to hear have become legion. I think 50 years from now we'll look back on this time as one of tremendous manipulation by those with the wealth to buy all the spin they want. Lots of maneuvering by those with the most money. We'll see if the other 98% of us have anything left when they finish looting the treasuries.

! Moderator Note Whoa, participation isn't up to you. Disagreement happens in science, and it's generally considered a good thing. And when someone accuses you of putting up a strawman of their argument to make it easier to knock down, the proper thing to do is show how it isn't, or admit that you missed the mark. When someone calls strawman, it means you haven't addressed their real argument, and so the discussion spins in circles, and nobody wants that. It's not a personal attack, it's a request for clarity.

Worst idea EVER, no surprise. You have been SO brainwashed! You're throwing away one of the most prestigious and profitable national charters on the planet as if it's worthless. A corporate charter in the US is a ticket to enormous potential in virtually every area of business. Why do you think that should be free? why do you think it's proper for a corporation NOT to help pay for roads and ports and the very infrastructure they use the most and the hardest? Why don't you listen to your precious Founding Fathers now? They were terrified of corporations getting exactly the power you so blithely give away to them.

Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. http://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/

Many Republicans have proven they don't understand the way taxes work, and they actively practice what you write here. Remember that Bush I and Bush II pulled the tax refund swindle and got away with it. They spent millions in taxpayer dollars announcing how big a check you were going to get back, and re-announcing it with mailer notices before finally mailing out checks to everyone. OMG, thanks POTUS Bush! Liberal sources tried to warn that it was NOT a refund per se, but merely a loan against the following year's taxes. Most everybody got a check one year, and the next year your refund was that much less. Dog and pony show, very short-term affect, and something designed to tickle conservative fancy while bypassing their reasoning skills. Now they believe the billionaire is going to lower their taxes. No surprise there. One born every minute.

I had to read your piratical attempt to commandeer someone else's thread and make it all about YOUR IDEA. Haven't I been through enough?! There are times when moderator judgement comes into play, but this certainly isn't one of them. It's never going to be OK to force a pet theory as a mainstream solution here, not even in Specuations. That's hijacking someone else's thread, and it's against the rules you agreed to, but haven't obeyed very well. I think you need a place like this that forces you to be more rigorous and build your ideas methodically, but you want to treat us like all the "anything goes" science discussion sites. I think you need to decide what's best for you. And if you decide to stay here, you will abide by the rules. You will stop melting down about rule enforcement, stop sending malicious PMs, and stop abusing the Report system. Alternatively, since you've told us all you're leaving, we can shut the door behind you. That will also be a solution.

! Moderator Note Off-topic posts split to Trash. The OP has posed the only speculation allowed in this thread.

! Moderator Note Please note that correcting misconceptions, especially by any of our active professional physicists, is NOT meant to be a "slap in the face", nor is it meant to cast you as "the bad guy". Most people who join a science discussion site come to learn, and to banish their own ignorance. Dr Swanson obviously assumed you would want to know about any misconceptions. You're welcome here, but we do discuss mainstream science. And we attack ideas vigorously, not people.

! Moderator Note Off-topic QM rant and reply split to Trash.

It's still one of the most catastrophic of the effects this stain of a man has on people, that he can trick so many into thinking day is night. They believe he is looking out for them, when the reality is he does NOTHING for anyone but himself and his wealthy cronies. They believe when people hate you it makes you a statesman. And they believe when Trump lies his ass off, he's being honest and speaking his mind. I have nothing but contempt for those who poke their own eyes out just so they don't have to see reason.

! Moderator Note Many off-topic posts split to Trash. The whole thread is on shaky ground. Something more than guesswork is needed, quickly.

! Moderator Note ; )

This is NOT a "difference is" reply to what I wrote. This is a complete blowoff of what I wrote. This ignores what I wrote completely, and then uses an intellectually dishonest comparison to what I wrote by claiming Trump is different. You don't even bother to give a decent difference; it's subjective and so heavily biased ("his kind of honesty is rare"?! Bwahaha!) that it's meaningless. You make the discussion more difficult by introducing different points before addressing what's already been put to you. Some call that tap-dancing, others call it preaching (because it doesn't seem like you're listening to anyone else but yourself), but it just comes off rude. If you can't answer the extreme wealth argument, you should just say so instead of trying to change the subject.

Theory is the strongest thing in science, period. Theory ≠ Guess. Sorry, had to correct this, very important.

Something Must Be Here?

This is the rhetoric pushed by billionaires who don't need the government the way most of us do. Isn't it pretty obvious that the billionaires in politics today are only interested in removing restrictions on themselves, and limiting the money spent on the rest of us? These folks have been hammering this message of "bad government" and "sleazy politicians" for decades, while actively being the representatives with the sleaziest behavior, doing everything they can to make the government bad. They don't care if you have access to libraries, museums, parks, swimming pools, or healthcare. They have all those things taken care of due to their massive wealth, and object to taxes that make these things available to the rest of us. They've chosen to ignore our efforts that brought them great wealth, and instead spend money convincing folks that government needs to be dismantled for OUR good. And now they have this blatant racist sexual assaulter-in-chief who is morally and economically corrupt, and happens to have a deluded following all chanting about bringing down the Fed. Working class folks who think this billionaire has their backs while he whittles away at the very thing that has the best chance of making all their lives a lot better. The wolves have tricked the sheep into removing restrictive fences, and the sheep are all praising the freedom.

! Moderator Note This part at least can be broken down to be understood, hopefully. Defining "apolitical" and "correctness" as separate words has not helped to clarify what you mean when you use them together as a phrase. Can you help once again? Can you give examples of apolitical correctness so a scientific approach can be applied?

We know there are predators out there who need to have their behavior spotlighted so we can deal with them as the laws allow. I think many other men are guilty of creating a false equivalence between predatory behavior and their own behavior, which triggers a knee-jerk defense. That's one reason why we get so many guys arguing that a peck on the cheek for a co-worker's birthday isn't such a big deal, when we're discussing what some of these powerful men have done to women.