Phi for All

Of course you are. It's not enough to just let the wheel of the ship come back to the middle. You need over-correction, but that doesn't mean give women more rights. That's crazy, and it just seems like a purposely obtuse way to diffuse an argument that you don't want to gain traction. It means that more attention should be given on a daily basis to gender inequality, and going out of your way (to port) to correct abuses. Over-correcting by joining women's support groups even if you're a guy. Over-correcting by reaching out to help educate those who've misunderstood the whole movement.

Isn't it GREAT?! I joined Emma Watson's UN Women's group HeForShe, men in support of women's human rights and gender equality. I think the organization does a lot to educate people who think there is no pay gap, and who have been misinformed from years of misogynistic leadership at multiple levels. It's about equality, not about giving women more rights than men, which is another ignorant point that needs to be clarified. I've said it before about US politics, but it applies here too. If your ship has been mis-steered to starboard for too long, you can't just bring it back to the middle to get back on course. You need to go farther to port to correct.

Do you follow the theory?

Delusion is only entertaining to the deluded.

I think each has viable uses. Using all of them seems preferable to focusing on one. The best drone idea I've heard is for them to find an asteroid of the right size and makeup, attach itself to it, and drive it to where we need the minerals, perhaps starting the mining operation on the way back. Economy of scale would make these eventually pretty cheap. I agree with Enthalpy about the use of humans. For research colonies and some missions, having a human right there increases the likelihood of successful adaptation to unusual circumstances by a significant amount. The thing to remember about the expense is that we've always recouped far more than we've spent when we invest in space exploration. The things we learn, the tools we create, all these things benefit us downstream incredibly. There's no reason to think further efforts will yield less in terms of knowledge, technology, and practical experience.

I just set it up that way. Patterns often seem to tell a story. Putting data bits together as relevant information helps you learn something meaningful, and that's what I consider knowledge. Knowledge is data presented as information that helps in specific situations. If I come home to find my TV is missing, and leading away from where it used to be is a paring knife, a roll of aluminum foil, and a trail of blood, I don't need to know the story to know that following the trail of blood is the next thing I should do to find out what happened to my TV. I would say that stories can impart knowledge if they're applicable to the situation in question. If I'm drowning, I'm not going to consider a story about fertilizer affecting crop yields to be valuable knowledge.

I think it was about inequality. Religion helps the poor deal with horrible conditions in this life, so they don't rise up against their wealthy oppressors. They'll gain heaven if they just put their heads down, keep working, and stop bitching about the hours and the low pay. I'm sure there was quite a bit of "God is surely pleased with the wealthy since he made us so prosperous" going on. It's difficult to break the hold of tyranny, and impossible if they seemingly have God on their side.

Important in what way? "Size" is a variable quality, so I don't understand why you think how big the universe is isn't covered by the word. Just because its size is incredible doesn't mean we should leap to incredulity. I would say that size in the universe gives room for events to happen, for one thing. A cosmic dance needs some elbow room to avoid collisions between participants. But it's an effect of expansion, not something that "matters" to the universe. Also, since we see that the observable universe has about the same properties, relationships, and forms no matter where we look, it's fairly safe to assume it's like that everywhere, until we observe differently. Size, even infinite size, shouldn't change that, unless you want to argue the semantics of infinity, and say that it means everything is possible eventually.

What is gained by looking at the universe this way? We know some theories are wrong, they've been shown to be wrong. Why would we want all our theories to be "true"? How can competing theories both be "true"? Are you simply saying, "When you accept that the universe might be infinite, anything is possible"?

Science isn't about "truth", it's about finding the best explanations for various phenomena based on observations that match reality. We don't know if the universe is infinite or not, so I would answer NO to your question. Truth is too subjective for science, since it seems to mean different things to every person. Besides, infinite complexity tells us nothing, other than you aren't going to bother explaining something so incredibly complex. And why would we want a bad theory to be "true"? Are you saying that because you believe in this infinite complexity, eventually all things will become "true"?

Some were lazy. These were the ones who kept posting science subjects in the Lounge for staff to move. They were most likely all beaten to death.

If living in space isn't possible, then the discussion is over. We'll do whatever we'll do, and it won't matter except to Earth. We know Earth species can live for millions of years. Nothing but small organisms have lived longer, so being on Earth until the sun goes red giant probably isn't in the cards. The only really interesting bit is if we manage to get off planet and establish Earth species elsewhere. It's the only way to keep any of it going, and I think it's only going to happen if the most intelligent species on the planet decides it's worth it and makes the investment.

I can't imagine what utility a concept like "infinite complexity" could provide. It sounds like a creationist ploy to trap science semantically.

Interactions between ascorbic acid and bacteria. Vitamin C kills bacteria. You have some bacteria in your urine anyway, probably less if you get a lot of vitamin C naturally. And the effect isn't diluted in your toilet, so you don't need to pee on the floor.

There's hardly any getting around being busy these days. I take this sentiment to mean that a busy schedule doesn't require rushing yourself. You can make it to all those appointments and still have time to chat with a pleasant receptionist, or admire the landscaping your client paid a fortune for, or take five minutes to conquer an ice cream cone (no drips hit the floor on MY watch).

! Moderator Note Enough! The constant shifting of topic, the misunderstandings, ignoring the rules, WE'VE HAD ENOUGH! Robbitybob1, you've shown that you're inconsistent with the purpose of this site. We're here to learn, and that means when someone answers your question, you actually read the answer, or study the link provided. It's clear you rarely do that, yet insist on posting at every chance. You cause an inordinate amount of member focus on triviality due to your inability to keep two thoughts in your head at the same time. If you engage elsewhere in scientific discussion, you should try to adopt a more education-friendly style that helps you keep track of what you think you've learned. Thread closed.

Oh boy. No. Just no.

"I want to get across town, and the ONLY way I see to do that is to build a locomotive out of... well, out of this styrofoam, and this duct tape. And I have some pasta as well. All this will make me a vehicle that will take me to my destination." "Why don't you just learn to ride one of the bicycles that are all over the place? Wouldn't that be easier?" "The answer lies in the quasi-pseudo manifold of the starch in the spaghetti...."

Careful there. According to the OP, using words like "big" and "must" and "never" turns your whole reasoned argument into one big emotional, faith-based belief. Atheists apparently aren't allowed to talk about god(s), or they automatically become some form of anti-worshiper using faith to disbelieve.

This shows such a complete and fundamental lack of understanding that it's hard to believe we're all reading the same things. That you could think "we sorta agree" with your uninformed rants tells me you only listen when you think you understand. For the rest, you switch off for whatever reasons, and that's why your education in this area is so sketchy. That you could acknowledge this and still think you've caught mainstream science in a mistake is really, really odd. You think you're onto some major revelation that people who studied science professionally missed. Your assessment of your own abilities is seriously flawed in this area. I don't know why it doesn't embarrass you to keep making these wild statements and assertions about a subject where you lack training. I don't know what you do for a living, but imagine some guy comes in and starts telling you all kinds of crazy, untrue things about how you should do your job. It's obvious he's only guessing at what it takes to do what you do, and each time he makes these statements, he shows his lack of knowledge about your job. How do you treat this guy? Do you let him ramble on about things he's clearly misunderstood, continuing to misrepresent what you do for a living? How can you tell this guy, who insists he's right but can't really explain why, that he needs to be trained, that he needs to be educated in the right way to do the job? What do you do when he insists that his way of learning works for him, when it so clearly doesn't?

You have a LOT of errors in there. The BB didn't burst. It wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion. It was also mentioned that we don't know that spacetime started for the first time with the BB. We really can't know anything prior to that. And the only reason it's called a singularity is because the math we currently use can't resolve the amount of heat and density involved, so we end up with infinities that don't help. That's the reference to a singularity. You should also look up what a dimension is. They aren't places where something can exist. It's a coordinate system.

It's very bizarre, the amount of effort you've put into avoiding learning mainstream science in favor of this approach you can't make anyone else understand. It's bizarre also that you defend it so much when it fails so spectacularly. It's like watching someone try to build a steam locomotive out of pasta, styrofoam, and duct tape so he can get across town, when there are bicycles available to everyone for just that purpose.

! Moderator Note This is very similar to the way many members feel about your insistence that science is missing something huge but nebulous and not well understood or supported by you. It's often a nightmare because it goes nowhere, mostly because you don't listen when members tell you about all the work being done that contradicts your assumptions. You wave your hands all over the place insisting there should be something more, when the "something more" is happening while you flap. There are very few members here who enjoy this kind of Wild West guesswork and wishful thinking. And you tend to open up three or four threads at the same time, all starting out with different topics but ending up all talking about the same nebulous longing you have for some kind of meaning you haven't found yet. It's clear as well that you will never find this thing you're searching for by being unclear, uncooperative, and unscientific. Once again, you're straying off your own topic, back into the weeds where nobody understands where you're coming from. Can we please keep these ramblings to a single thread, or can you make more of an effort to stick to a single topic per thread? Those are the rules, Mike, and you know that.

If you really are acknowledging the difficulty in trying to second-guess complicated concepts when you don't know enough about them, then you really should also acknowledge that you need a more formal route for education than the one you've been using. I highly recommend taking a class where a more comprehensive approach will serve you better than pop-science tidbits.

We can't really know if there was another time prior where space and time existed. We're pretty sure our present dimensional configuration started with the expansion, but can't say for certain this is the first time it's "come into being".