Phi for All

True. I was thinking he'd heat fewer rooms up more quickly, running the blower less. But checking with an expert friend of mine, your blower lasts longer if it's properly rated (30 BTUs/sf for moderate climates). So it might help slightly, but over time might cause more wear than it's worth. So it's not forced air, but you still have the problem of the cold room pulling heat from the warm rooms if it's not sealed against this. It doesn't really matter if the radiator is off in the cold room, if the warm rooms are radiating also.

The big room would need to be truly sealed off from the rest of the house. You need to block the air at the takeoff from the duct from blowing into the pipe leading to the big room, and you need to stop the other rooms from pulling heat from the big room. I don't think you'd get any benefit unless you could leave it like that the whole season.

We've had a few posts and even some topics opened lately about dismissing ideas for lack of evidence. Most are criticizing some kind of "liberal" agenda on staff's part, so it occurs to me this is in part motivated by the recent POTUS election. I want to clear up some points on that. It's both an official stance (because it concerns the rules, and because I'm posting this where the only reply can be from other staff members), and a personal one (since it may concern judgements not covered by the rules). Adherence to the rules that have evolved over SFN's lifetime is hardly "liberal". We're interested in discussions that are scientifically productive, to ensure a sound learning experience for everyone involved. This means following rules. In this, we're actually being pretty conservative. Adherence to scientific methodology is also a conservative stance. Here, I'd have to say we're only moderately conservative. We're far too liberal for many of our most experienced scientific minds (bless you all for your patience and understanding, you know who you are), and it's true we give some folks more rope than others. It's not because we think anyone's wrong idea is better than another's, but often there is a reverse benefit that might be realized by further discussion (How-Not-To threads are valuable - in moderation). But if you joined and now think we're too liberal because we dismiss an idea for lack of supportive evidence, you need to know that's not going to change. We're not going to start allowing Wild Ass Guessing to take the place of scientific enquiry. If you have a question, post it in a mainstream section, and discuss the question without resorting to your speculative ideas. If your idea is speculative, you need to understand that it has no weight without evidence in support. No matter how nifty you think the idea is, it's just another WAG until you support it, and you can go to LOTS of other forums for that kind of "science". It's just not something we want to waste anyone's time on past a certain point. That point is when it should dawn on a scientific mind that evidence is the weight our scale measures best.

What do you think?

You would prefer tacit support of your positions, I know. Such is the weakness of pseudoscience and make-believe. This is a science discussion forum, and this is the mathematics section.

There's no shame in trusting the preponderance of evidence. In this case, it shows that video-only education often leads to fundamental misunderstandings, which leads to unsound thinking, which leads to numerology vs mathematics discussions.

Are you serious? Regardless of your point, serious scientists reject numerology. Period. And most serious scientists don't do yootoob, they publish papers. Things you should be reading, to learn things properly. Hmmmm.

Please provide links to MIT, Stanford, Khan Academy, and TedTalks on numerology.

I dislike this statement immensely. Logic is part of maths, but the kind of "logic" numerology uses is tainted and subjective. Not all valid arguments are sound.

! Moderator Note Do NOT post drivel like this in our science sections! If you have an alternative idea to mainstream science, something you can more obviously support than this nonsense, please post it in Speculations. But don't post this there! This is garbage. There are so many things wrong it would be like an anti-Christmas present to allow members to correct you. Please stop fooling yourself, and go back to school.

You can pretend to be exacting and accurate, but who here is going to buy it? You blew that bridge up long ago. You can't tell me you wouldn't be screaming if the Russians had released the GOP emails they hacked and held back the Dems. Again, why aren't you worried that the Russians are using the emails they hacked from the GOP as blackmail leverage against the US? Your attitude doesn't pass the stink test. You're just a party sheeple, and anybody is OK as long as he's Republican. Even Trump, who is putting his buddies at Exxon Mobil in a trillion dollar bed with one of the US's worst enemy. The sheer corruption going on as the alligators are being swapped out and put back in the same swamp should have you screaming, but it's OK because it's not Hillary.

I was paraphrasing. Wait, you've started reading sources?! Are you sure? They'd have facts and stuff. Why don't I put together some of your quotes and John McCain's quotes and Mitt Romney's quotes about Russia and Putin? Then you can tell me how much Putin has changed over the last 8 years.

2014 GOP: "Putin is evil and must be stopped, period." 2015 GOP: "Obama is worthless against Putin; a Republican POTUS would put a stop to this menace who attacked the Ukraine, and shot down a Malaysian jet." 2016 GOP: "Hillary can't stand up against Putin. We need a tough Republican in office to stop Russia's predation." Trump 2016: "Actually, I like him. I like the other guy, the North Korean you all hate, I like him too. Japan needs nukes." 2016.5 GOP: "We need a nominee who understands foreign policy, someone with experience, but definitely not Hillary, and definitely not Trump." Trump 2016.5: "Russia's going to be our friend now, just like magic. Ain't America great again? I want that in the platform, btw." 2016.8 GOP: "Actually, we've always loved the Russians, and we think it's funny that the liberals are afraid of them. Look how handsome Putin is!"

The jokes section is in The Lounge, comrade.

So how about a synopsis of your basic inversion? Maybe you're trying to cut and paste too big a selection. Maybe you could just type a quick overview of your idea.

! Moderator Note We're a science discussion forum. Please stay to discuss science if you like, but no more advertising threads. You can put a link to your site in your signature.

Right, because it was just another POTUS election, after all. Nothing out of the ordinary.

I just meant that the original Pastafarians were pirates, and this is clearly their work. I think the little round piece below is a collander.

Clearly the work of pirates.

And that's the way to think about it. Not using steam tractors that simply substitute green components in industrial age tech, but rather a whole different branch on the tree of tool evolution. Am I wrong in thinking that limiting ourselves to solar power would encourage more of a united effort in our species? Burning fossil fuels makes working in small groups efficient, but wouldn't solar-only push us towards more concerted efforts in creating and using energy from the sun to work for us?

My guess is volume.

Adhesive rubber bondage sounds like an intriguing step up from ropes and knots. It could even replace my velcro wall if it doesn't burn the skin.

Uploaded? Are you trying to attach a .doc to your post? I typed this up in word, then copied it and pasted it here. I don’t think the problem is ours. I'm moving this to Suggestions, since it's got nothing to do with Astronomy.

Right, I'm just saying the design was within our abilities should we have decided that polluting with burnt fuels was taboo.

Vitruvius had a basic steam engine design, based on even earlier compressed air designs. He was around from 80 BC - 15AD.