Phi for All

No responses were deleted. What are you on about? And no, you don't get to claim this is a fact after you've been asked for citations to back yourself up. Still haven't seen any evidence, and I agree with Velocity Boy that if anything, it's the placebo effect that has changed. The placebos themselves have not changed.

Perhaps the bottom of the ocean is littered with the corpses of time travellers.... You can go anywhen you please if you can handle the pressure.

Not for the two I was thinking of. Reading to the elderly/incapacitated/children, and recording audiobooks. You want a job where the work is light enough to let you read when you want and work as little as possible? Good luck, you can't work for me.

! Moderator Note OK, since you're posting a pet idea now instead of asking a question about the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, the rules say this needs to be moved to Speculations. But without a way to test this idea ("belief manifests reality"?!), there's no science to be done. It's all just wishful thinking and wild-ass guesswork, and there are other sites for that. I need a direction for this thread pretty quick. Do you want to defend this idea with evidence in Speculations? It can't stay in Quantum Theory without some science.

This mechanism worked well when we knew little of medicine. Inflammation led to swelling and secretions that cleaned the often dirty wounds out. Now that we know more about wound management, that phase is a bit of a problem, and drugs help us circumvent a natural and normal but cumbersome and sometimes detrimental bodily process.

! Moderator Note Sorry, but this discussion is based on misapplying a well-known definition for "dimension". There's nothing to speculate on, and even the philosophical angle shouldn't be based on a misunderstanding. ALO, I'm going to toss this thread, but if you can pick a different word for your concept you can open another thread about it, maybe in Philosophy. You can't use dimensions, it's been taken by physics.

! Moderator Note In this thread?! I can't find it.

! Moderator Note Since this is no longer a simple classical physics algebra question thread, and is now actively arguing against the mainstream, it's time for all students to stop taking notes. We're moving to Speculations, where the ice is thin and your professor is NOT going to accept any of the answers. Please take the time to read the special rules, Mandlbaur, and please support your idea with evidence. People are going to be asking for it.

! Moderator Note Let's cut back on the conjecture. We'll write the movie scripts after it happens. Stick to the topic, please.

I pointed out that they resisted their own Hitler and went on to form a better society, as a way to support my argument that we don't have to allow ourselves to be destroyed by the "virus" in the OP. Sorry I wasn't clearer.

Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian fascist like the man in the American White House, and for sucking up to Putin Hitler and helping him dominate the Norwegians, they removed Quisling from office after the war was over and hung him. We don't have to help the virus spread.

The Norwegians resisted their own Hitler after WWII, and now have one of the most sophisticated and enlightened societies on Earth. Negative examples can have a profound impact. Surviving the discovery of fission weapons can be seen as a test of the very things that make us human: high intelligence, cooperation, and communication. We're in an age where, for the first time, we can think about leaving the planet. Sooner or later it will occur to the general populace that we can't be a divided species when we start to colonize offworld. Human hostility + a system's worth of resources isn't a good equation for Earth. Education would seem to be the key.

! Moderator Note #1 rule here folks, Be Civil. No more name calling, no more insults, please. Sensitive topics deserve some extra thought from everyone.

So you spend your life trying to find a reality you're not developed to exist in? Constantly questioning whether yours is the real world and if you're only fooling yourself to think you can rely on your own intelligence?! This is the face I'm making: And a little bit like this: I think this would make me miss out on reality a lot. But maybe it's just me. I also like to experience my daily adventures rather than take pictures of them.

! Moderator Note Agreed. Don't do it again, and please stop wasting member's time with your trolling of science. You seem to have no point to make. Thread closed.

No, I would argue that trust, hope, and faith are all forms of belief. Your way doesn't make much sense. It's belief that takes many forms.

How could he? Newton had no empirical evidence of god(s), so he believed using faith, not trust. You have some very glaring misconceptions about philosophy and science in general. What's really unfortunate is that you're in a place that could help if you would start asking questions rather than trying to re-write what's already been established.

Trust is all we can expect from good science. Trust is a form of belief that works best with science. Faith is good for religion, but science doesn't prove anything and instead relies on theory, which in turn relies on preponderance of evidence. If the evidence is trusted, the theories based on it can be trusted. Time and experience enforces that trust. In the end, the way we believe in a theory is by finding it worthy of our trust. So yes, most definitely, I'm saying that you must trust in order to progress in science. Not hope, that's just wishful thinking, and not faith, which is strong belief without reason. Trust is very important.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-shimkus-prenatal-care_us_58c1e4fae4b0ed71826b6e4e More resentful judgements? Women don't complain about having to pay extra for insurance to cover prostate problems.

There are certainly those types around. I'm thinking of an acquaintance of mine who had a product he invented and sold to Walgreens. It was a shoe accessory, packaged and put on a rack. It was a clever product though, and not that intuitive, and so it did poorly at Walgreens (where there are only clerks to ring your purchases up). Walgreens also owned Foot Locker though, where the need for a salesperson to fit shoes lent itself well to explaining my friend's product. He sold a ton of them through Foot Locker, and the difference was in the presentation by someone on commission.

And the difference is usually whether or not commissions are offered by the store. Clerks usually do no more than a feature dump, telling you what-all this thing does. A salesman is usually needed when the thing doesn't sell itself so easily, and a more presentational style skill is needed, and usually compensated by a percentage of the sale.

! Moderator Note If you need to say this, you need to start your own thread instead of hijacking someone else's. I've split this off by itself. Good luck defending this position on a science discussion forum.

As long as you don't think this person has disturbing issues as a scientist (like I do with Ben Carson), is there any explanation other than corruption? Isn't this a sign that somebody is getting something for their on-the-record anti-consilience statements?

When a society decides that the most extreme wealth should be used to offset the most extreme poverty, wouldn't it send a message that the health of even the most vulnerable is worthy of support? Rep Marshall's shoulder-shrugging attitude suggests his own self-esteem comes at the cost of other's. I would also posit that anyone in this age of medicine who fears it enough to forgo their own healthcare lacks education, something Rep Marshall and his party have also fought hard to keep from Americans. These people demand that "healthy" and "smart" should only be attributes of those who can afford it. Circumstances of birth are shit to these folks, they just don't care.

There seems to be a FU point where American people can be rich enough they don't need help with anything. Their homes are museums, on parklands with a pool. They can even hire their own police and fire suppression systems, so they pretty much just need the military to keep their business interests safe. That's when they want to stop paying taxes, and start resenting everything that doesn't benefit them directly. Having so much, they resent those judged undeserving. I don't mean to generalize. I know people with fabulous wealth who fund worthy causes, and believe in supporting a higher level of economic security. But we chose this system. We've voted people into office who have ensured it's this way, and when they didn't believe this we voted them out. It's a system that heavily favors an already heavily favored upper class, so it must be what makes the majority of us happy. We're in a democracy, we can set it up the way we want, and we've chosen this. Italy decided to structure the way workers are compensated by dividing up pay so they get a 13th month payment in the middle of December, which most turn right around and spend on Christmas and vacations. They like it that way, it helps everyone participate in their own economy more, and just gives everyone in general a great feeling of national pride. You could point out to everyone that the Italian companies don't pay their workers more in order to do this, that it's just a restructuring of compensation benefits, but you could never sell this concept to the US job providers. Eventually, the question of whether an employee deserves such a benefit would be raised.