Phi for All

Ignorant is the precise word to use, not stupid. We prefer nobody calls any person stupid here. Calling someone ignorant implies a temporary and limited situation. Calling a person stupid implies a kind of global idiocy that is inaccurate and insulting. Ideas can be stupid, you can call them that. Oh boy, can they be stupid.

! Moderator Note Moved from Suggestions, Comments, and Support to Ethics, since this seems to be more than a comment about the site. ! Moderator Note If you want to make assertions like this here, you need evidence to back your idea up. How many times do we need to tell you (rhetorical, please)? We have different standards than other sites, different rules to uphold. This shouldn't be so hard to grasp. Please support assertions like this with evidence, no matter what section you're posting in, otherwise the thread will be closed. We're not here to provide you with a platform for unchallenged, ranting, wild-ass guesswork.

Science has important, shared definitions for certain words that you can't tamper with without removing the meaningfulness they have. You can't redefine those words on a whim so they fit the ideas in your head. The shared definitions are important in removing the very subjectivity you're trying to force into your ideas by using non-standard definitions. The fact that you don't understand this, coupled with your insistent assertions that you're "right" despite all the people showing where you aren't, led to at least three non-staff members reporting your latest post that ignores science (after many patient pages of your hand-waving). I suggest you remove whatever blinders are making you think you know things you don't, and go back and read the thread (not just your posts, but the others as well), and realize you're guessing yet insisting you're right, and you aren't giving anyone any reasons to trust your word over mainstream science. Also, please keep in mind that we'd like to see you succeed here, but that will require following our rules and presenting a bit more rigor. Asking more questions and making fewer assertions would be an added bonus.

! Moderator Note JohnLesser, you've chosen to ignore mainstream science and the question you started with, in favor of your own interpretations. I would move this to Speculations, but it's clear you don't understand relativity enough to support your ideas to the necessary degree. Seriously, this kind of willful ignorance has no place here. If you aren't listening at all, you're just preaching. Don't ever pull a bait and switch like this again, asking a question and then ignoring the answers so you can make things up, guess a lot, and claim it's true. That's not science. I apologize for letting this go on so long. I got 3 separate but practically simultaneous reports about how tedious this thread has become, which tells me waiting was a bad thing.

If I spin the cake, I only need to cover the radius.

Well, I see two cups of coffee, whatever is to the right of baby bear (is he still into porridge? I thought it was orange juice), and what you said was a transparent bottle (which I now know is empty since you don't count it as a drink).

And there's the bottom of that barrel, folks.

Because we're using science. For your explanations, that's like using a fishnet to catch air.

4 drinks, 3 pieces of cake. A red herring? You imply, with the bending of the knife, that a "slice" is a single downward "chop" of the knife, even though there would be no movement of the knife in a "slicing" motion. It would be more like a pair of angled cleavers than a slicing knife. You also imply that "slices" are straight cuts with no turning on the point. I could slice three equal pieces based on the marks at the edge without picking up the tip if I can change the direction of the slice outside the cake. Also, the knife is single-edged and tapers at the point, so I don't think it would work to bend it and chop out a 1/3 wedge of cake. One bit of the perimeter wouldn't be cut completely through because of the taper.

So well put. To allow extremism like the OP, everyone has to think alike. Then they can choose either ultimate order or anarchic chaos to make themselves happy. Force everyone to be one way or the other, or else you're stuck with a very intricate, semi-predictable, deeply layered societal system that may not please everyone all the time, and spends resources trying to help diverse perspectives co-exist.

There are 3 beverages (looks like 2 coffees in coffee cups and a glass of milk or juice), but a fourth object (bottom right corner) that looks like a donut on an oval plate. Is there significance to this object? It seems out of place, but could belong to Goldilocks, I guess (although she isn't cutting herself a piece of cake, so I don't know why she'd have a beverage).

I mean this false dilemma you're arguing for, this "only way a society can be truly happy is if nothing goes or anything goes", it reduces complex systems down to meaninglessness, and insists there's only two options. It's a naive stance, and I hope you'll be able to understand this, and look for something with the kind of depth you're going to need now that you're asking more complex questions of yourself. You can see there is a difference but want to know how? We're animals, animals eat food. The examples you used for hurting people were all negative: hurting or offending someone for fun, doing it out of spite, or out of hate. There are no good moral choices there, whereas hunting to feed yourself isn't immoral. You said anything goes, or nothing goes. If you can't hunt animals, should you be killing plants?

How can you say this but claim we don't know all the stable elements? It's like you're claiming you could beat us all in rugby if you could find a racket with the right grip.

! Moderator Note The only offense is you breaking the rules. That's what I'm here for. I have no opinion on your idea, other than it doesn't have anywhere near the rigor and acceptance to call it a theory. But you aren't supporting your idea the way the rules say you need to. You're guessing and claiming it's true, and that won't fly here. Every site sets their own rules, and ours say we're not interested in your guesses, but if you care to support yourself with more than wavy hands, we're more than willing to listen. So once again, I will ask you to provide some support with something, anything more than just your word, that can be analyzed using actual science. I don't know how to be more fair and still do my job as moderator. Last chance.

! Moderator Note You need to support your ideas with evidence. These top physicists have plenty of it. You have nothing so far. Hand-waving and name-calling will not keep this thread open. Start answering the questions and provide links that support you. Without evidence, you're guessing and insisting you're right. The thread will be closed if you can't support it.

I think your viewpoint is too shallow for someone of your obvious intelligence. Reducing society down to an "either/or" perspective ignores the nuances necessary to make a society of individuals liveable. Killing an animal because you need to to eat is very different from sport. You seriously can't see that, or are you too first-world? Your other examples all seem negative, yet you don't understand killing to eat is a natural system? I guess in your worldview even eating a salad would be murder, right? Nothing goes.

! Moderator Note Moved from Speculations to Chemistry.

! Moderator Note Speculate with supportive evidence per the rules, please. If you make an assertion you can't support, you're guessing yet insisting you're right. The thread will get closed if you continue this way.

Not for stable elements and isotopes. We know all of those. Abundance varies depending where you are in the galaxy, but chemistry and physics would have to be fundamentally different for there to be new stable elements we don't know about, and we see zero evidence for that.

This doesn't show up on the illustration, and doesn't necessarily mean she marked the cake itself, but does she have to follow these original marks? Do we assume the knife can't be unbent to make a the single slice at the end? (my emphasis) Does "already" imply something other than impatience? It seems an odd word choice, which is always a red flag in a brain teaser. As far as I can read, no cuts have already been made.

I'm intrigued by this approach. At the very least it has the benefit that it isn't covered by a lot of willfully ignorant, oft-refuted, copy/paste creationist arguments. @Raider5678, if you continue in science, you'll learn that theories like evolution are so heavily evidenced that arguments against them as a whole are hopelessly outmatched by the sheer volume of predictions fulfilled by the theory's robust explanatory capabilities. It's not a question of belief (the way you use the word) at all. Evolution is a fact, and the way it behaves is explained by the theory. Like climate change, there is far too much evidence corroborated by far too many disciplines for science to be wrong about it by any meaningful degree.

A safe and reliable method for getting a dong big enough to touch the toilet seat when you sit down.

Are you suggesting it's our fault, or that we take on marketing responsibilities as well? Resources are slim. AFAIK we have minimal income from banner ads that pays upkeep only.

I was trying to remember which of his novels I've read, and this was it. The cheela on the neutron star, right? This story was great prep for understanding the dimensions in Flatland.

There has to be a lot of that in order to come to a place like this challenging mainstream science, right? I'd still like to know what other highly technical fields people feel free to criticize without knowing very much about it. Maybe I should head over to the airport and tell the air traffic controllers about my new ideas for landing more planes. Most of those guys probably aren't pilots, right, so my lack of flight time shouldn't be a drawback (I'm not a pilot but I've flown). In fact, I'm not bogged down by all their protocols and experience, so I might even come up with something nobody has thought of. Right off the top of my head, I think we should turn up the AC in the flight tower. Air traffic controllers should never sweat, because it makes pilots nervous, and it might get in the controllers eyes, or short out valuable electronics. See how easy that was? I can't believe all those "professional" controllers never came up with that. Really, it's sort of my duty as an air traffic controller to save all those people who would otherwise die without my insights and intuition. And if you don't agree and kick me out, I'll be forced to create as many accounts as necessary to save lives. A little awe would be appropriate right about now.