Phi for All

It would be interesting to see what impact a group of young legal minds drafting up cases (pro bono, of course) against some of the major corporations behind the denier movement would have. "Just getting ready for the inevitable lawsuits that will be leveled at your company for all the foot-dragging and active efforts to halt regulations designed to mitigate climate change effects."

What if you lose the blade, keep the winch, and lay down a heavy tarp the length of the driveway before it snows (20'x40' US$108, cut and sew to get 10' x 80')? Run rope through grommets at the house end to your winch/come-along at the street end. The snow falls on the tarp, and when it gets full enough, you winch/roll it to the street, where it's easier to deal with.

And now I want a chi car. Something I can charge up myself and drive. Or a chi-powered unicycle Segway. The One Wheel.

You need to deal with one misconception at a time here. You're juggling three or four here in this thread, which is why it was split from the other thread. You redefine well-known/understood terms like motion, space, and matter, which is a HORRIBLE practice (seriously, would you discuss baseball with professionals and use phrases like "If you swing your sticks faster, the ball-grabber's mitten won't be able to catch the ball"?). You assert that you're right instead of asking questions, when it's clear you're dancing on the surface of a shallow, pop-sci foundation for a science education. I think it's great you're interested, and you're obviously pretty smart, but you need some mainstream study. What you're doing here to yourself is science garbage. Nothing personal intended.

Listen, this is a science discussion site. We hate it when people say things are "facts" and then don't support that with evidence. Without evidence, you're just ranting. It's boring. If you're going to try and start a conversation with science-minded people, don't call your opinion "fact".

I wouldn't say it that way, no.

Can you think of a truth, something that is universally true for all people everywhere, that isn't also a tautology (red roses are red)? Most of the things people think are true are subjective to them or their culture (theft is wrong), and part of the scientific method is identifying the subjective influences in your arguments and ideas, and minimizing their effect. A court of law might try to seek out the "truth" of what happened in a particular case, but they use science to build a preponderance of evidence to support the case. I'd say leave the truth to the law, and focus on the preponderance of scientific evidence.

What stops you from relieving both your sickness and your boredom by making your surroundings beautiful?

Doesn't it say a lot about modern usage that the first internet image of this is with a man instead of a donkey? I often feel this way.

So our ability to see that far isn't bounded by our technology; it's bounded by the light's ability to reach us from that far away, correct? New technology isn't going to make the pole longer.

! Moderator Note Or, you could just say, "What have you got so far? I can help but I won't give you answers."

Two different carrots and two different sticks. You're thinking of the set that involves either beating the donkey to get him to move, or enticing him with a carrot. Carrot OR the stick. The other set involves tying the carrot to the end of the stick, and holding it in front of the donkey, so he moves forward to get the carrot, but it always stays the same distance away from him. Carrot AND the stick.

It would be like a pre-experiment. You'd throw it out immediately if it yielded results like the OP claims, and finance a much more comprehensive study. Similar to asking someone to name several playing cards that only you can see in order to test psychic abilities. If you guessed 80% of 30 cards correctly, I'd definitely say further testing was a sound investment, even if it's only to find out how you're cheating.

! Moderator Note There's little value in a discussion with a specific topic (WMDs) and no distinguishable parameters (and other BULLSHIT). This is leading straight to conspiracy theory, and we don't do that here. If you can open another thread without the conspiracy, please feel free to do so. Stick to a single topic when you can, and try not to jump from subject to subject. If you make extraordinary claims, you need to support them with extraordinary evidence. This thread is closed.

! Moderator Note Sorry, it's a new anti-spammer setting we're trying. Hang in there, we appreciate it.

* Sigh * Types of Belief: Hope -- I can't support the idea rationally, I think it's probably right, so I'm going to believe it anyway. Faith -- I can't support the idea rationally, but think it's so important to me that I will believe strongly in it, and have confidence it will be exactly as I believe. Trust -- I have made observations, devised experiments to test the idea against reality, I've tried to remove all subjectivity from my process, I've come to conclusions, shared them with colleagues, received feedback, made predictions based on revised information, tested those predictions, encouraged colleagues to repeat my experiments, and supported a precise, objective methodology to pile up a preponderance of evidence to support my idea, and I believe it because I'm confident it was arrived at rationally.

No. No, no, no. We don't "believe" in models that way. We trust them because of the preponderance of evidence that supports them. They represent our BEST explanations because they reflect reality BEST. That's why we believe in them, because these models have been tested and are worthy of our trust. And btw, if a model isn't complete, it's constantly being added to with more trustworthy data. It's not wrong because it's incomplete. You don't throw out a model because it doesn't tell you everything. It's still a building even if you haven't finished putting in all the carpet, right?

Technically though, they came first.

But it's a belief you can trust, rather than a belief you merely hope for, or are forced to have only faith in.

Citation, please. From whatever bulk you're reading from.

I disagree, but only because the claim is so extraordinary. If even a few of the subjects were able to run 50-80% faster, or throw a ball 50-80% farther, it would signal that something seemingly supernatural was going on.

Since there is no center, since we can't show that with any conviction, why do you insist on there being one? Since we can't observe anything beyond the observable, we have no firm ground on which to speculate. We can only say it's most likely about the same as we observe, but that's probably not good enough for whatever it is you want to predict.

Please don't take this personally, but that's the worst answer you could have given. It betrays everything that makes science meaningful. You're simultaneously saying that if we don't know everything we don't know anything, and that your subjective "truth" is trustworthy enough to base an explanation on. It's clear you need to stop making assertions from ignorance and learn something with a question or two.

Sorry, but that shirt is frikkin' ridiculous. Mine is blue, though, and that makes all the difference. Totally badass.

Absolutely. And it would taste just like snake and frog's legs.