Phi for All

These words have some strength, finally. No maybe, no soon, no try. Just a firm resolution, no more, not ever, that is all. This is the attitude you'll be successful with. This is different, and I think you can feel it too. All strength to you, my friend.

If the indictments show Trump collusion with the Russians, why would we accept the administration's #2? If T is impeached, then P should be too. Ryan is next, and not part of a fake election.

If they go after Trump right away, it plays into his "witch hunt" sob. By tying up his underlings before showing the connections, nobody can say they didn't follow the evidence.

It might if we don't accept anyone from an administration that's been found guilty of colluding with foreign powers to manipulate the election that put them in office.

! Moderator Note Methodology FTW! reerer, if I see any more of these "This concept I misunderstand is WRONG!" threads, they'll be closed immediately. It would be different if you learned anything, but it's obvious you don't. Try asking questions if you don't understand something. That's what discussion is all about. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note This isn't true, and it's been pointed out. If you're here to troll, nobody is interested. This is a science discussion forum, and the emphasis is on learning. Your behavior isn't consistent with constructive discussion. You need to remedy that or risk suspension or banning.

! Moderator Note This seems like trolling. Please explain where you think Strange is agreeing with you. The purpose of this section is for you to support non-mainstream concepts and have them questioned and corrected by the membership. I see lots of corrections of the foundations of your concepts and very little acknowledgement that this most certainly affects the validity of your ideas. You continue to defend as if nothing was wrong. This is a science discussion forum. It's not a blog, it's not a pulpit. You need to support your ideas with evidence, and take valid criticism on board if you want this thread to stay open. It would be a shame if you actually were on to something but got sucked into a hole of misconception because you didn't listen.

If I admitted I knew that, it would make me older than I currently wish to think about. I'll just say that it's a terrible thing when good jokes have to be explained. +1

! Moderator Note The difference between honest misunderstanding and trolling is acknowledging your mistakes, and those who help fix them. reerer, you need to start acknowledging where your ideas are based on mistakes others are pointing out in each of your threads. Trolling is against the rules you agreed to when you joined.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please read the special rules for this section of the forum. Defend your ideas with evidence as much as possible.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations due to non-mainstream components. Please read the special rules for this section, and support your arguments as much as you can. It would also aid discussion if you would deal with questions rather than dismissing them as shallow. That should make them easier to answer. No need to respond to this modnote, but if you object please report this post and another staff member will help.

Is this homework?

"Soon." "Attempt." "Anytime now." Listen to Yoda. "Do, or do not. There is no try." Help you, he will.

Torturing "logic" like that is illegal in most countries.

! Moderator Note Pet theory response and replies split off to here.

! Moderator Note Why are you not answering the questions being posed to you about why your solution is so far off from our best explanations? This is why your ideas aren't in the mainstream sections, why they can't be. You aren't engaging with the process science has found successful, and you aren't satisfying the rules of this Speculations section of our discussion forum. We're two pages in, it's time to start supporting your ideas against the arguments of peers. Welcome to science.

Go to your page by clicking on your name, and at the right toward the top there's an Edit Profile button. Push that and your signature should be at the bottom of that page.

There's nothing in nature that comes anywhere near the concept of limitlessness. We can't be sure space (or anything else) is infinite, or that a black hole is infinitely dense. Imposing absolutes normally leads to trouble. Invulnerability is like omnipotence; you're straying into the supernatural when you start thinking in those terms, and you can't use science on the supernatural.

No. That sounds like a complete waste of time and energy. Whatever protects me from a nuclear detonation restricts me from moving. I'm reminded of the little kid who can't play in the snow because he's got too many clothes on. It sounds too extreme. Evolution doesn't have an ultimate aim for any species, and I don't see how making ourselves invulnerable to any harm or even pain is a worthy goal. We do expend effort protecting ourselves against many scenarios, but we usually can pick and choose, and rarely need them all. As we leave the planet (which I think is more of an ultimate goal for humans), it becomes necessary to protect ourselves from more energies and situations, but I'm not sure we'll ever have technology that can protect us from every extreme environment, lethal energy burst, and kinetic disruption.

Which cause an excited state (ask any five-year-old girl), and that's how QFT treats point particles. No need for god(s). No. Whether there is no god, or there is and he's secret, the result is the same. Science needs to observe something in nature to gather evidence, experiment, and make predictions based on what we know, so a god that can't be observed isn't something natural, isn't something science can study.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/symptoms-causes/dxc-20181874 http://journals.lww.com/clinicalneurophys/Abstract/publishahead/Association_of_Insulin_and_Cholesterol_Levels_With.99576.aspx https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11334438/ From what I recall reading, insulin triggered by high blood sugar signals receptors in the cells, which then produce more of their own cholesterol rather than accept it from the blood.

Blood sugar has a lot to do with whether your cells accept cholesterol from the blood or manufacture it on their own. When blood sugar is too high, cholesterol in the blood goes unused and needs to be removed by high density lipoproteins. A vegetarian would need to watch sugar intake, since it's not just meat that contributes to overall cholesterol levels.

Some people want the theory to include creation so they can bring up inconsistencies, to cover up the strawman fallacy they're based on. I think others have just been misled by popular journalism into an imprecise definition, sort of like they have with terms like "logic" and "theory".

The distinction is usually with the theory, not the fact of evolution itself. Theory of evolution says nothing about a beginning, just a process over time.

So now we just need to discuss how to keep you from consciously thinking about it. We should do this daily for at least a week.