Phi for All

! Moderator Note Sorry, but the rules say you can't start threads to advertise your website. Feel free to discuss BBT here, though. At our science discussion forum. Which you've already joined. Just sayin'.

! Moderator Note You can't copy/paste whole pieces of work protected by copyright like that. Quoting the relevant bits in a limited way falls under fair use, but please refrain from misusing the work of others.

! Moderator Note A hijack post and its replies have been split off to here. This is a mainstream section, and speculative science is neither wanted nor appreciated here.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum. What aspects of either soldier's sacrifice or Memorial Day do you wish to discuss? Do you have any questions?

I sat in on a writer's lecture at COMICON last month on the "Femme Fatale" character and how it's changing. It's swung from pinup poster girls bursting from their brassieres to oversexed wild cannons better at being men than men, but it is settling into more natural and realistic perspectives as more women writers and actors are being recognized for genuine portrayals of modern women.

! Moderator Note Our rules, the ones you agreed to when you joined, specifically state that discussions must be possible without watching your video. You can try again, but this is a discussion site where the medium is words, and nobody wants to watch your video. We're here to discuss science. You're welcome to join us, but not if you're only interested in preachy pushing towards your YT account. Thread closed.

Another force at work here may be the "scales of justice" justification. Shameful actions become justified if the perpetrator is wealthy enough to escape the mob, and has also done a great deal of perceived good in perspective. The worst polluters on the planet often are praised for the jobs they add to the economy. In their minds, it probably all balances, or even tips in their favor.

In wars where leaders have a more ruthless yet legal set of rules, the cause for guilt from aggressive actions is removed/reduced. But I think this ruthless aggressiveness is less necessary and more harmful as nations grow bigger and more sophisticated. I think we've grown past the point where it's an effective trait for society as a whole, since modern relationships between nations are so much more complicated. It's still a mindset that's used quite often, but I think it's almost always used to satisfy a narrow group agenda that requires force as opposed to appealing to moral stances the majority of us might have. A lack of shame/guilt may cause more rapid advancement of a certain cause or movement, but over time guilt often forces a society to acknowledge their weaknesses and work to overcome them.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum. We can discuss coding subjects you learn in a school environment, but we're not equipped to teach in the formal way you should learn. Alternatively, we can discuss the best ways for you to learn how to code apps in your region. Thanks for understanding, I'll leave this open for feedback.

What's wrong with the "Science will handle the natural explanations and Religion can have the rest" reconciliation?

! Moderator Note No. This can't be known or inferred with our present knowledge, so anything you say further is just a soapbox guess. Drop this line or I start tossing posts in the Trash.

I see my father's face (not the smiling one) anytime I even think about doing anything illegal. Guilt is what you feel whether you've done the wrong thing or only thought about doing it, but shame is what you should feel when you've done wrong and get caught. Shame leads to remorse, and that's what many courts look for with regard to sentencing. Are you ashamed of what you've done, and wish you hadn't done it? If you're not, you don't deserve leniency. I would suggest it's hard for the ultra-wealthy to feel much guilt or shame. Money helps make things not illegal, it pays for spin to justify your means, and cushions you from the reality most of us face when we break the law.

You're looking for guilt, I think, not shame. Shame is a result of feeling guilty because people found out about something shameful you've done. Guilt is very important, I agree, in the proper proportions. It keeps us from doing things we know we shouldn't do, and helps us formulate right and wrong. Guilt is the responsibility you feel for your part in something, and shame is feeling guilty for being wrong. Does that make sense?

I don't know what a "shy" sense regarding shame is. Shame to me is subjective since different things are shameful to different people. Are you talking about "not being shy", as in the wearing of revealing clothing should be considered shameful, or something like that? I don't know what you mean when you say "shame is one of the best feelings of the human being". Why is it so great?

Personally, I've always thought the format was more important than the topic. The idea is to discuss a subject always with an eye towards critical, reasoned thinking. Don't assert without evidence, and even when it's just your opinion, supportive evidence can strengthen that as well. Use scientific methodology wherever possible, check your sources, communicate your ideas so they're most easily understood. Pass along your knowledge about mainstream explanations supported by the most evidence, and make sure when you speculate that it's not just a wild-ass guess. If it's a subject like religion or politics, more evidence and less assertion about your stance will help keep the discussion from burning up uselessly. I'd like to find a way to encourage members to spend more time making posts meaningful. If you find each time you post that the next several responses are asking you what the hell you're talking about, then you aren't being clear. If your posts are just sniping at someone you disagree with a lot, ask yourself if your attitude is possibly affecting their behavior which is responsible for your attitude? And it would be nice if members who get their ideas refuted would at least acknowledge that we're just doing what science does, instead of claiming we're not giving their idea a fair chance, or that we're too hidebound to see how their genius works.

! Moderator Note Not a good enough opening post for the Physics section. You can try again, with evidence, in another thread (this one is closed). If you're proposing something non-mainstream, please post it in Speculations.

And that's exactly what happened. Your concept was analyzed (models are math-based), and found to be broken or just plain wrong. Most ideas are wrong, and when you identify where that is, you fix the broken parts if possible and see if that works. If you can't fix it, the idea is wrong and you move on to something else.

! Moderator Note Stop! Don't hijack someone else's thread, open one of your own if you wish to pursue this concept!

This seems like over-thinking a perceived male/female pattern. And you've got some glaring errors you've built this pattern on: The BB event is NOT synonymous with how we define "universe", and that definition also assumes there is no "outside". You're trying to find a pattern in a misconception, which is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle of a boat when you think it's supposed to be a goat.

I don't agree with this, although it should be true. Unfortunately, what most people think of as Truth is very subjective, and not factual at all. Also, I don't agree with your use of "logic", as in "illogical as the rest of the world". Logic shouldn't be defined as "something that makes sense to me".

! Moderator Note Off-topic post deriding religion in general has been hidden.

You have a hard time making yourself understood. This statement seems to support the idea that the way science asks people to believe, based on experiment and evidence, is different from belief that isn't reasoned and evidence-based. This is what most here have been saying, and all your garbage about non-beliefism, and quoting and hiding your own garbled words over and over again hasn't changed this at all. You sound like you're preaching at us, but in a different language that hampers what you're actually trying to say. You seem to be stating obvious things mixed in with some wild guesswork you only half understand. It's really hard to discuss anything with you, and I think that's why your threads get closed, and why you have to peddle your "science" in the Lounge. Just sayin'.

I'm not sure what you're saying. It seems like you're saying that because most people don't believe the way scientists do, nobody believes that way. Is that what you mean?

The graphics aren't evidence that the way people believe in something that has been rigorously tested is the same as the way people believe in god(s), or ghosts, or that vaccines cause autism. Believing in something testable and predictable is more reasoned and rational than believing in something wishful, or supernatural. Can't you see that?

When you have to torture the accepted definitions of words to make your ideas work, you aren't doing science. I'm sorry, but I don't think you have the understanding to reinvent anything about science. Get some arrows and the bow will work better.