Phi for All

Interesting perspective. I have heard a lot of religious folks claim that asking for evidence of their god's work is an affront to faith, that it basically invalidates your faith if you need something real to support it. I suppose you could say creationists show that evidence and reality are more important to them than to the average theist.

I have a looped scene of a beach with waves lapping at it as the wallpaper for my phone. When I need some serenity, I flip to a screen with no apps on it and watch the waves. Beaches need water AND sand. Something about being on the border between two worlds is both exhilarating and relaxing at the same time.

It seems so wrong that a scientist would tell you science isn't a tool for trying to show god(s) don't exist, yet creationists try to use science to show they do. And since they ignore most of mainstream science, their arguments are always trivially refutable, laughably ignorant, yet always phrased in such a way to trap those as ignorant as they.

Again you assign a motive of making "something look more complex just to appear knowledgeable on a specific topic". You're guessing about this. I could do the same thing and say the reason you're doing this is to put these people down because you think they make you look bad. Or that you want us to dumb everything down for you. Or loosen our rules so you don't have to be as rigorous. I'm just guessing, of course. How can you tell the difference between someone who is trying to participate in the exchange of knowledge on a science discussion forum, and someone who is just doing it to appear more knowledgeable?

This is a very good point. Arguing over an idea can seem like a debate. Pointing out mistakes can seem like pouncing on weakness. Discussing science can seem like a competition, but in the end it should be about learning something meaningful that you can trust as reliable scientific information, something you can use to expand your knowledge. It's hard to espouse even mainstream knowledge without seeming to "defend" "attacks" against it. Perhaps I've participated in too many "Einstein was WRONG!" discussions.

Arteries, capillaries, and veins.

I'm not sure how you know the motive ("to make themselves look more knowledgeable"), but I don't see this type of behavior much. What I see more of, which looks a lot like making things unnecessarily complex, is members having to correct terminology and processes in order not to lead people who don't have a lot of science knowledge in the wrong direction. Also, for the average science geek, it's almost impossible to let the little wrongs go uncorrected. If something is incorrect, you give it tacit approval if you don't say something (at least it feels that way sometimes). Science IS complex. You can't avoid it. That's why you need precision, clarity, and a shared terminology to make things as easily understandable as possible. I think a lot of complexity is added when people are making up their own "logic" and "theories" and asking everyone to change the way they use certain words.

You are mistaken. Evidence doesn't equal proof. Or truth. Evidence either supports, refutes, or has no impact on an idea or explanation. Proof is the wrong term to use in this context.

I don't think it's a very valid approach. You assume the premise, then ask us to assume dark matter is either related or not. It's too much guesswork with no supportive evidence, so I'd have to go with "we don't know".

Beaches, baby. Life's a beach.

! Moderator Note I'm not paid to look at the page, I'm paid to enforce the rules. Oh, and I'm not paid. Did you miss the part where I invited you to post the relevant parts of your idea from your site into the thread? So people know what parts you claim they didn't read? If you refuse to do that, then it does seem like you were at least driving traffic to your site. Just sayin'. Your call. Support your ideas with the material available to you, answer some of the questions others have posed. Scientific discussion dies without these. Please Report this note if you have a problem with it, instead of responding to it in thread.

! Moderator Note Perhaps you could copy over the relevant points? We're not here to advertise for your site, and it's against our rules to promote it.

FWIW, you have a habit of setting up situations where there is no way for you to be satisfied. You're told that the debate has been ongoing and inconclusive, yet the immediate conclusion is the only solution you'll accept. It's likely not gong to happen, so you put yourself in a perpetual skeptical state, which is profoundly unproductive. Why does it matter to you so much?

Many folks smoke only at certain times; when out drinking at a bar, or first thing in the morning, or right after meals. That's usually accompanied by some pleasure-based judgement that those are the "best" smokes of the day. You're already starting to compile a list of why you should give them up, but now it sounds like you'd rather cut back. Frankly, the stuff you're doing to diminish your smoking, though admirable in it's effectiveness, only solves the one problem of cutting down. If that's the goal, rather than cessation, there's a ton of stuff you can do but I can't think of any that aren't purposely wasteful. Perhaps, if this is (as you suggest) a compulsion rather than an addiction, you might be able to find a healthier substitute to replace it. Juggle (or practice how to), or play a quick smart phone game, or teach yourself a different way to shuffle a deck of cards (protip bonus - the phone and the cards are about the same size as a pack of smokes! It will feel natural reaching for them).

Science doesn't look for proof. It's important that you accept this. We're not looking for answers here, we're looking for the best supported explanation. If we thought we had proof of something, or that we had "The Answer", we'd stop looking. Theory keeps us searching for better explanations.

The smoker first has to want to quit. Really want to quit. Not "cut back". Not "see if". Not "can I?". The smoker has to quit today and never have another cigarette. List all the things that stink about smoking. Make sure you have plenty of reasons to quit, to help reinforce your behavior. Then you just have to tell yourself you're done with it. No more, not ever. I like to picture it as a door you used to open often, whenever you wanted a smoke. So now you don't just close and lock the door, you rip it out and brick up the hole. That door doesn't exist anymore. It isn't hiding something you aren't supposed to have, it just isn't there. Smoking is simply no longer an option. This is your mantra. You need to avoid the idea of "I've quit now for x days!" It doesn't matter how long it's been, it's not an option, so why count days? Don't substitute gum, or anything else to eat or suck on or otherwise orally fixate. If you need a substitute, think about all the stinky stuff, and how that's not part of you anymore. If you need some kind of chemical release, try smiling every time you think about smoking. Or do the V for victory dual arm salute, that will send a bunch of good stuff through your system. So this is basically cold turkey with the right perspective and attitude.

You imagine a caricature of what physicists are like, and then condemn them for it. Reality would be a good tool to use here, as opposed to making shit up and then claiming it's true. I'm very disappointed in this post. It's nothing but bitterness and delusion.

! Moderator Note Ignoring the replies you don't like isn't scientific. You should have taken a stab at refuting the last few posts instead of trying to wave them away with your hands. You've obviously spent a great deal of time and effort on this, but you aren't supporting the concept rigorously, and are choosing to brush off certain questions that would seem to invalidate your claim. That's not a productive methodology, especially in a discussion. Unless you're prepared to answer all questions with evidence that supports your stance, don't bother bringing up this subject again. If you feel you can support yourself better, contact a staff member about starting a new thread on it. There are obvious problems with this approach and it's pointless to talk about it until you're willing to address those problems. Thread closed.

We usually require things to make at least some sense around here. This makes none. If you think you can support such an idea scientifically, I invite you to start your own thread about it, in Speculations.

! Moderator Note Making a statement followed by a "don't they" or "isn't it" type of query is a funneled question. With this approach, you aren't asking a question about the science, you're asking if the respondent agrees with you (and they may agree with parts but not all of it). You've funneled the question so yours is the only answer. It makes it appear you're assuming you're right, and inviting others to agree or disagree. This is probably why you're getting some pushback. Let's all take a breath before continuing.

As long as the mass/energy of any of the masses doesn't change, I don't think it makes a difference to the way gravity affects them.

1. "These thoughts" haven't been peer-reviewed, so if they've been published, it wasn't in any reputable journal. 2. Unfortunately, you've skipped over a lot of connective science that would have shown you how to better approach your ideas. I really wish we could talk you into going back to school for science classes. We need people who are interested and educated in mainstream science to help further our understanding. Unfortunately, popsci offerings are appealing more than they are informative (their goal is to make money, not to teach science), and they sometimes cause more harm than good. The cosmological models we currently have reflect our best explanations for the phenomena we observe. Learning these, and the science behind them, allows us to use their awesome information to predict where the next pieces of knowledge are. Many phenomena were predicted before they were ever observationally confirmed. I hope you'll continue to discuss and learn with us. You may have skipped some science classes, but you're smart enough to come to a place like this to ask questions. You didn't go to some Wild West Guess Factory where the science is secondary to vivid imaginations and what-if leaps over contradictory evidence. As ajb mentioned, you might want to research a bit on branes and String Theory. Shore up some of the gaps in your idea, then assess whether you think it's still viable or not. Most ideas are wrong, even from professionals. Good luck!

Dimensions overlap? Are you using the right definition of dimension? Dimensions aren't like multiple universes. We use dimensions to determine where and when something is. The first dimension is length (x), and a line can have many points along it. 90 degrees perpendicular to all those points is the second dimension, width (y). You can't have the second without the first. The third dimension is height (z). Together with the temporal dimension, time (t), we can plot anyplace in the universe using this coordinate system. If you tell me to meet you at a certain latitude, longitude, altitude, and local time, I'll know you want to meet on the 27th floor of the Empire State Building in New York tomorrow at 09:00.

Well duh, you have to stand to get in your car and drive to the liquor store.

! Moderator Note wissen85, you need to start addressing the points raised by other members, otherwise this is just soapboxing, which is not only against our rules, it's totally against the spirit of discussion. Please spend more time on being rigorous in your approach to science, and to discussing this topic rather than preaching it. Don't respond to this modnote in the thread. If you feel our rules are unfair, use the Report feature on this post and another staff member will deal with it.