Phi for All

Uncivil behavior, the death of any thread. "Please, come talk to me while I beat you over the head". I don't mind the angry part, but being rude is a choice.

"Unexplained", in this context, means things for which the natural explanation is ignored in favor of an "unexplained" supernatural reason. It's not science, it's not evidence-based. Pseudo-science, maybe? "Paranormal" is just "supernatural" in a fright wig.

"Tune in next week as Velocity_Boy attempts to remove his foot from his mouth using PHYSICS!" A physicist with the US Naval Observatory can teach a higher level class than that, bro.

I should have said "if there are diners who could have filled up the table" instead of "when", I guess. That's my point though. It's not that you're by yourself that will cause any concern in other diners. It's what you're doing while you eat that will avoid or attract unwanted attention. If you aren't talking or reading while you eat, what is your focus? If you're just pondering while you eat, where are you looking? To the folks at the next table, does your focus make it look like you might be listening to their conversation? After all, if you aren't focusing on anything, and you have nobody to talk to, it might look like you're focused on a table other than yours.

It's only ethical if you sit at the bar. If you're taking up a server's time on a duece or a four-top table, and leaving just a standard 15% tip, you're costing the server money when there are diners who could have filled up the table and made it more worth their efforts. As for how you appear to other diners, I think you're missing the point. It's not that you're by yourself, it's what you do while eating that's going to make an impression. Are you looking around the room at all the other diners while you eat? Are you focused on your food and not looking around? Are you reading something as you eat? The rest of the diners who aren't alone are usually talking to each other as they eat, the more people at the table, the more talk usually. What are you doing as you eat?

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. We need to keep non-mainstream ideas separate so students aren't misinformed. Please support your ideas with as much evidence as you can.

Being desensitized by immersion is certainly a danger, but one you can be aware of and do something about. And I think it's worth the risk. To me, knowledge reduces the kind of fear born of imagination, the kind where we make decisions about things without really knowing anything much about them. I think there are a lot of folks out there who are scared of what they don't understand, and rather than ignore or even invent problems, they should be educating themselves about the things they fear, see them for what they really are before making decisions about them. Also, let's face it, being informed about your community and country makes you a better citizen. It would be nice to have a government TV program that informed the public as its priority, rather than making a profit.

I have a friend who's wife made him buy a pressure-assisted, quick-flush toilet in their guest bath at home, with the idea of getting rid of the waste FAST. The problem is, it hisses so loudly that it scares the hell out of you when you flush the first time. I've never gotten used to how loud it is, and I don't consider it worth the quicker flush. It might use less water, but it's hard on the nerves.

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.