Phi for All

I see this argument only from people who want to misuse a well-understood, well-defined term to promote an alternative idea. You'll generally run into problems with this, and rightly so. Walk into ANY group of professionals, and start misusing terms they're very familiar with, and you'll get a similar reaction. It's more about accuracy and understanding than pedantry. And as a perspective, shouldn't the one person coming in with an alternative idea use the definitions used by the mainstream? Why would you expect everyone else to change?

A few points. You were NEVER ridiculed here. Your idea was NEVER ridiculed here. Flaws were pointed out. Nobody said, "I'm not going to listen to anymore because that idea is CRAZY!" You were corrected on some mistakes, misinformation, and flaws in your arguments. This is what science does, it reviews everyone's ideas, looking for flaws, fixing them, and approaching the idea again, over and over, until it's either shown to be false, or nothing false can be shown. We discuss science here, and it IS fun. We just prefer accuracy in our discussions. What fun would it be to discuss, for instance, a sonic weapon for use in outer space, when it can be shown right away that sounds don't have anything to vibrate against in space, so it wouldn't work? None of the crazy ideas that ended up working had flaws like this, or they were correctable flaws that didn't interfere with known science. As Ophiolite pointed out, how could we be aliens when our DNA is obviously terrestrial? It sounds like you're dismissing our critique mainly because nobody agreed with you. You're making us sound like we just wanted to crush your idea into the dirt because it's "crazy". That's not the case. It's simply wrong, like 99% of the ideas humans come up with. That doesn't mean you stop. It means you sharpen your pencil, study up on some science (NOT VIDEOS!), and hopefully your next idea has more evidence to support it.

It's not evidence, but one could make a reasoned prediction based on past actions that Trump would consider himself smart if he changed the system to favor himself even more while he controls the Executive branch. Hillary, OTOH, is talking about raising taxes on her own bracket.

When Trump accused Cliinton of fighting ISIS for her entire adult life, I wanted her to point out that ISIS hasn't even been around as long as Melania. Would that have helped or harmed?

It's not a coincidence that many people who don't study science seriously are convinced we don't study science seriously. Why would you think, because we haven't discovered something, that it's because we're doing something wrong? Observation and the scientific method have done pretty well for us. And don't knock the box. The box is where all the good stuff is. It's what the experts use, and they're probably the only people I'd trust to think outside it.

! Moderator Note Moved from Speculations to The Lounge

! Moderator Note You should open a blog somewhere. This forum is for science discussion.

I'm unclear on what you want to discuss. Why does trading time for money affect immortality? Are you thinking immortality means you don't need anything money can buy?

Wow, that took guts, but mostly it took critical thinking. I think critical thinking is really what you mean by logic. Some misunderstandings have been cleared up, based on supportive evidence. A crackpot would have insisted they were still right and ignored the evidence. Very good job, +1.

I think you mistake the intentions here. Nobody is shooting down your ideas because they're "a little radical". It's because they're based on misinformation. If you were to have the idea that you could supercharge your brain by plugging it into an electrical outlet, would I be "shooting you down" by pointing out that the signals in your brain use a different and incompatible form of electricity? You complain that we may not understand our own theories, but you make it plain that you don't, at least. It's very common to be ignorant about an area of science and therefore think something is "missing". I often look at the intricacies and think of a jigsaw puzzle cut from the skin of an onion, layered and linked, dependent yet individual bits representing massive amounts of study, research, testing, and observation.

Not completely sure, but I'm going to guess wherever it is, they'll have the same problem with you ignoring the rules.

It wasn't a blow at all, it was an observation involving some humor. Or not, apparently. I'm sorry I tried that, since it seems to have made you miss my first point. I don't agree with your stances at all. First, the scientific method produces trustworthy data with which to form information. It has little to do with taking anything on faith, or hoping it's true. Second, it's clear you don't understand what logic and theory really mean. Logic isn't just something that makes sense to you. And theory isn't educated guesswork. A scientific theory is the strongest, best explanation we have for reality-based phenomena. If you think anything in science (besides maths) can be proven, it shows you've misunderstood some fundamental concepts.

Not everything that burns was once alive. Fire isn't a product or a byproduct, it's an emergent event. It can't exist unless conditions are right. If iron filings, which were never alive, are heated enough and given enough oxygen, fire will emerge.

I'm not sure it has anything to do with gentleness or kindness. I've been intrigued by the concept that, due to so much time spent as hunter/gatherers, men in general are better suited to tactical, focused pursuits, and women in general are better suited to strategic, big-picture pursuits. Anecdotally, women in general seem to worry about a broader range of problems on a constant basis. It would seem that women might be better candidates for leadership with this concept, but not by the standards men have set up (perhaps this is why some of the women in our lives that would make outstanding leaders wouldn't touch the job). Making decisions based on longer-ranged goals for the greater good is something I think we're lacking in today's politics.

Unlike water, which has matter to physically force apart other matter, isn't space simply existing where matter has vacated? Space isn't trying to exist. That's like saying darkness is trying to exist whenever the light goes out. Be careful when you violate natural laws like this. I think making a snarky comment about people's education in a sentence you misspell is a variation of Skitt's Law.

It seemed for a time that voters were fed up with the partisan idiocy that kept Congress gridlocked for two terms, but then Trump came along, and now they're wasting precious effort on our non-spiraling-out-of-control-crime-rate and our non-crippling-immigration problems. And the media helps them do it, in the most insidious, irresponsible, and damaging ways, like a heroin dealer who gets hold of methadone clinic mailing list. If voters aren't going to require substance and clarity from the candidates, Hillary is at a decided disadvantage. And the minute she goes near any Trump-style tactics, the double-standard imposed by People who identify themselves as conservatives will sink her. They would roast her forever for doing once what Trump does daily. Infinite hypocrisy.

I answered what I understood. I can't agree with your contention that politics and finance don't have an influence on science. There are types of research that are critical to advancement that need public funding, since the returns on investment are difficult to calculate. Private interests won't touch that kind of research because they don't make money from it in the short term. Good science is testable by peers, so it's highly unlikely your dictator could fool those outside his control. You're suggesting we have theories that might be wrong, simply because we've always assumed they're right. This isn't the way science works. You don't understand what a theory is if you can think this way. A theory gets corrected and tweaked almost constantly, but there's no chance any of our major theories is "way off base". A theory is the strongest thing there is in science.

Oh heavens no, you're not the only one. There seem to be hundreds of thousands of you, thinking that by aiming in an unfocused way, you'll hit the target nobody else has been able to hit. I wonder if professional sports teams get calls from amateurs, encouraging coaches to give them a chance despite having only played some sandlot sports? "As a bonus, I don't have all those bad habits your million dollar players have." Science is a LOT of facts and data that need to be put together in a special way to build meaningful, trustworthy information. Learning at least the methodology is critical. There are connections you simply won't be able to make without prior knowledge. You might be able to figure out how to start a car, but without a lot of prior knowledge about maps, gasoline, driving laws, languages, people, weather, and more, you aren't going to be effective as an automotive innovator. It's the same with science. Discovery is more like getting a job than winning the lottery.

A different perspective: the negative reputation isn't so much for your claims as for how nasty and non-typically uncivil you're being about hammering home your point. You seem unhinged, sir.

Previous discussion on this subject here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/19922-why-does-water-make-me-sick/?hl=%2Bwater+%2Bmakes+%2Bsick If you like, I can add these posts to it.

There used to be a conscious effort towards ethical journalism. I certainly don't mind the media making money selling things, but information necessary to keep the People informed shouldn't be distributed using business models. We don't need growth in news reporting; we need accuracy and impartiality. To get anything other than growth and profit, you need a different model. I see Hillary as too much of a capitalist to allow broadening our public options, so I'm not sure this relationship will improve under Clinton.

It probably won't help, coming from me, but I think you're waaaaay out of line here. I'm involved like Tom is, so it's not my call, but I can tell you that posts like this fall within my definition of trolling, where swansont's do not. It's not unreasonable to demand evidence for extraordinary claims. I'm concerned that Clinton won't address the relationship between the media, the mega-corps, and politics. Recently I was told by a reliable source about a small local disaster he'd been involved in. First responders swooped in within 3 minutes, assessed the situation, made sure the public was made safe, cordoned off the area, did everything you could want them to do. By the time the press showed up two hours later (late from covering a local political rally), the situation was well in hand. However, the news crew went on to stage themselves as arriving in the middle of chaos and turmoil, and made it seem like nobody knew exactly what was going on, that information was coming in slowly, painting a picture of negligence and inept handling of a potentially dangerous situation. The whole thing was a fabrication. The head of the emergency crew could have told them exactly what was going on if they had bothered to track him down and ask him. I'm livid about this. I've made it known before, I consider accurately informing the American public of what's going on to be more important to homeland security than anything TSA has ever done for us. I consider this kind of for-profit journalism criminal, and I don't see much difference between this and any traitor deceiving the nation with lies and deceit.

I think I see the problem here. Sweeping is like the gesture of your arm, or the way the angle of eclipse sweeps darkness across the land. Sweeping is not being used to mean cleaning, like a broom or vacuum cleaner. Black holes don't suck up matter like a vacuum cleaner. They are extremely dense and have an extremely high gravitational pull. Dust and debris fall into them, the way they fall into Earth's gravitational pull, or the sun's.

Hyperbole works in politics because it appeals to impassioned concerns. People who feel very strongly about an issue often feel excused from making reasoned arguments because they care so darn much more than anyone else. They think it's OK to go overboard, or exaggerate, or include everyone in an argument. Evidence is ignored, innuendo is embraced, and biases prevent them from diminishing ignorance. I prefer to be informed so I can make informed decisions about what stance is right for an issue. That way I can be impassioned about the stance, not the issue itself. Waving your arms in the air, complaining about what's going on isn't as effective as deciding what stance is going to bring about the outcome you want (hopefully that's also what the country needs), and standing up for that.

I had an elderly relative who was like this. Thought it was terrible what they did to Rodney King. Thought it was wrong to discriminate against black people. Thought we shouldn't take advantage of them just because slavery made them less intelligent than other humans. She didn't have an evil bone in her body, but she was so badly educated that her wrongness could be absolutely monumental at times. She was generous, loving, and wrong.