Phi for All

Isn't that what I said? You think welfare creates dependency, yet you refuse to look at real numbers, in favor of your comfortable lie that nothing is better after 50 years. Guess what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_dependency All this hatred towards minorities and other welfare recipients, when the "problem" you go ON AND ON AND ON ABOUT is less that 4% of welfare recipients. And guess what else? We have historic evidence that if an administration is firmly behind the programs they're responsible for running, they tend to do a whole lot better (take FEMA for example, and the differences between their handling of hurricanes Katrina and Sandy). So if we stopped listening to people like you, stuck in the past with your 78s skipping on the phonograph, we might actually get those dependency figures down to an even lower single digit number. I invite you to join the rest of us in 2016, where reality doesn't acknowledge your sad old lies.

Stealing this, and pretending I said it first. Plagiaribbonfish.

The reason for this is that you came to your conclusion emotionally. You didn't use reality, or available evidence that supports the LCDM model. You saw what you thought was a flaw, you convinced yourself you were right, and now you're practicing horrible science by trying to "prove" that you're right. I can tell because no real scientist is adamant the way you are. Science requires a degree of uncertainty, and that's why we use theory, instead of "proof". When an hypothesis can't be disproven, when all the evidence supports its conclusions, then we start to call it a theory. It should come as no surprise that scientists would favor the model that has the most supportive evidence over anything less.

Yes. It's a mechanism that has lots of potential in medicine, especially now that we're at a point in our evolution where fight or flight is not as strong a factor in our survival. There's also cloning, so you may be able to grow a new arm using your own tissue, then have it attached. This may be a better way to control the process.

More like he's a saint for doing all your work for you. He shouldn't have had to do that.

I have little connection to a person who fears change, to the point where they'll accept criminal actions by their leaders rather that try to stop it and work towards something better. We've had 50 years of conservative vandalism in this country. 50 years of handing our rights and liberties over to corporations interested in making money at our expense. 50 years of ignoring routine maintenance to our infrastructure. 50 years of degrading minorities with clauses of judgement in our social programs ("We'll treat you as human IF we think you deserve it"). 50 years of these bloated ticks sucking out the lifeblood of this country and giving back nothing in return. I have little connection to a person who thinks dropping gasoline onto a fire will smother it, or somehow make it less costly and damaging. Our current war on terrorism has been the single biggest conservative rape of foreign policy since the Reagan administration. Attacking Islam the way W Bush did was one of the biggest mistakes made in modern history, imo. IF you're a human being, that is, and not an exploitative mega-corporation making money when things are hottest, by engineering the heat yourselves. For the hundreds of thousands of humans who had to die to make those profits possible, I'd like to apologize for my country. I have NO connection at all to a person who would put personal, hateful restrictions on public funding of basic needs, like healthcare, shelter, and food. People like that have convinced themselves (with help from Rush, Beck, O'Reilly, etc) that once someone goes on welfare, it's all parties and the lazy life. They have no connection to reality, no connection to what these programs actually accomplish. They fear it's true, so it is true. Conservatives look to confirm their fears at every turn, cherry-picking the negative, ignoring the positive. And they often try to make it seem that all perspectives should get equal consideration, even when the potential damage is quite apparent. It's clear that this type of behavior is a big part of why we're in the situation we're in. History shows us that we often have to make the changes that are necessary for the country, and then deal with the fallout later. Conservatives will complain, and in their ignorance they'll bitch about higher taxes and forget they're paying far less to insure their health. They'll forget about how much they griped about the horrible roads that are now fixed, and focus on how much more they're paying in taxes. And the conservatives will complain that all this diplomacy isn't making us visibly safer from terrorism, despite the fact that we won't be killing off so many humans, and we'll be having a dialogue among leaders, instead of trying to kill the mosquito with an RPG.

Why are you so bad at preparing an OP for meaningful discussion? It would help to have links for reference. It would sure stop a lot of wasted time asking wtf are you on about. The chupacabra reference sure didn't help clarify anything either. Neither did the comment about the math "being there" a hundred years ago, but not now. How about taking another shot at it?

Violence, chaos, and a lack of regulation are simply more profitable environments for many of the mega-corporations. If we stopped trying to light everything on fire before we deal with it, and just deal honestly, we could use the calm to reduce violence around the world, deal with terrorists economically as well as philosophically (will they need to keep attacking us if we stop drones and carpet bombing?), and hopefully show the world that the current liberal trend can really help overall prosperity. But we have to get rid of the extremist conservative clout in our politics to do it. They've made that abundantly clear. They aren't interested in working legally within the system. Mostly because they're crooks and liars who profit from the corrupt way things are now. I notice Republicans have been re-writing Reagan's history yet again. They no longer tout the oft-told tale of how The Ronald slew the demon commie Soviets without firing a shot, just by using economics against them to bring down the Berlin Wall. Probably because that's the best answer now, dealing diplomatically and economically with the countries that allow terrorists to train within their borders. But lighting things on fire still makes more profit. Margins are high when you steal with a license.

I made that shit up, too.

For every convert, they get to sneak out of Heaven when they're dead, and spend the day in Hell partying. They get to go over the wall for pleasure, and when they do they call it "Ladder Day". This was actually used to name the Church.

You should go back and reread. There is a VAST difference between the baseless, bigoted, and hateful behavior of US conservatives, and the reasoned, rational, and determined behavior of those who've had enough and want a big change. I am very sorry you aren't able to see it. What you do, with your kneejerk centrist reactions, is to lend credence to the crazies, to make the insanity a valid POV that must be compromised with. You give it power it doesn't earn on merit, simply because you think moving towards the center is always best, and always involves compromise. But we've tried, and it's clear one side isn't listening ("Not going to consider your judge, Obama, because...JUST BECAUSE!"). It hasn't worked your way, despite having been tried over and over in the last 20 years or more. Your argument about being better people is ridiculous. This is all about being better people. And about not compromising with the bad people. That IS how one gets better, you know. How? By polluting the good with the bad? Your centrist compromising is guaranteed to give us a tainted movement, something hobbled before it gets to run. You seem to be advocating that capitulation with conservative points of view will help the Sanders Movement, which seems insane. If you want to do better, you need to change. If your system is messed up, you fix what's bad about it. You don't keep some of the bad things and add some good, then hope that it all turns out good. Are you starting to see the problems inherent with your stance?

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/bogus-meme-targets-trump/ Made up.

And while we have very specific feelings about what combat is all about, where the allies and enemies are usually more clearly defined, when it comes to organized crime we have a blind spot. We've romanticized gangsters and thugs, pirates and thieves. We know what they do is outside the law, and yet we admire their loyalty to "this thing of theirs". It dovetails nicely with the numbness to lies and broken promises that politicians have engendered. I think the combat metaphor is being pushed on us, just like taxing the wealthy proportionately is being called wealth redistribution, and gets described as "They're taking money I've earned away from me", so the implication is that the money is being taken from their accounts and given to lazy welfare addicts. Or the famous Republican Death Tax duplicity. Similarly, if it's combat, everyone wants to be on the side of right, and it's a lot easier to get folks roused up when you invoke their patriotism. If people really recognized this as organized crime at the highest levels, where the corporate/military/industrial Mafia gets to write the laws that might stop its rise to power, it could vastly improve the effectiveness of the movement Sanders wants. Maybe we need to classify it with a good sound byte: Highly Organized Crime.

Iirc, we have an embryonic regeneration that we lose before we're born. There is research ongoing that attempts to isolate the mechanism so we might apply it to amputations some day. The problem is, we gave up regeneration for faster-acting scar-tissue long ago. Once we left the safety of the trees in our evolution, we needed a way to quickly stop blood loss and promote healing. Cell regeneration like salamanders (not all lizards) and most fish have requires them to find a safe, quiet place and remain stress-free and dormant during the regeneration.

I agree. Supervillain Evil Dictator would be more of a challenge. It's important to pick the right lab accident to suit the villain.

Your need to equate EVERYTHING borders on the pathological. You'll never know the damage it's done to you.

You've got an idea that you want discuss, that's great. As Endy said, we're one of the few science forums to have a Speculations section for non-mainstream ideas. But it's not for Wild West, free-for-all guesswork. We need science, which means we need evidence. You can't prove your idea is correct, but hopefully we can show where it's wrong, and that will help you make it stronger. Just be warned, we're going to be pretty strict about the evidence. And most physics is modeled by math, so folks are going to ask you for that as well. You should stop calling it a theory, since it isn't. Pop-science and television have warped the real definition. Just like they have with "logic", which has popularly come to mean, "That makes sense to me!" Give us as much rigor as you can. It sounds like you have problems with the LCDM model, so that might be a good place to start. Use your idea to derive the altitude of a geostationary orbit around a planet. We can do this with astonishing accuracy with present models.

How about using an emotional counter? Something like, "How are you going to explain to your grandchildren that there was a consilience of multiple related scientific fields that confirmed the dangers of doing nothing about AGW, but you decided to do nothing anyway? Is 'I'm so very sorry' going to be enough?"

! Moderator Note You should have started this thread on your own, instead of trying to hijack someone else's. This has been moved to Speculations. Please read our special rules for this section. Also, please give a synopsis on your paper. Few here trust vixra as a source of peer review, and it's part of our rules that discussions should be able to take place without going elsewhere, downloading a PDF, or watching a video. And please support your idea with evidence. Math would be very helpful as well. Good luck with disproving physics.

I've read where other countries think we're a bit obsessed about the flag. They considered it a bit fascist to have so many things either draped with the flag, or colored like it. Nationalism run rampant. It's a bit more difficult to define what our flag stands for. Every place you see it, it's flown for a different reason. I've always viewed pride in our flag as a potential. I love the country, but I'm not always patriotic about the actions done in its name. When we do the right thing, it's easy to look on with pride.

This tactic reminds me of calling oneself a skeptic. You assume you're automatically in the right because of your position, because skepticism, like patriotism, can't EVER be bad, right? And then you get to judge anyone who criticizes anything wrong with your country as unpatriotic. Just like Trump gets to say his detractors don't want America to be great again. But Trump is also using gaslight techniques. His lies are denied, he doubles down with confidence on all of them, and he tries to make you think YOU are wrong as you're telling him he's wrong. He's using the worst of the Republican tactics, and he's added his own brand of sociopathic predictions of violence, bigotry, and hatred.

I really hope this blows up in their faces when it comes time to elect Congresscritters. People are sick of this lie that anything coming from Obama is Dark Side.

This should always be a big red flag.

Our past massive immigration efforts are a huge part of what made us great, imo. To act this way now is the height of stupidity, denying ourselves access to one of our greatest assets.

Subjugation is a very good word for what conservative corporations misusing conservative politics as a weapon have done to the USA. I'm absolutely saying it's time to over-compensate to fix the damage done. I think it's very interesting that you defend the specific things we've mentioned as being normal, par for the course, left/right/center politics, yet when mention is made of sweeping changes, of not letting the right have it all their way for a change, you suddenly call it "subjugation". No, not interesting really. More hypocritical. The "loggerhead" you refer to is your centrist, compromising, middle of the road approach. That's where we're jammed up. The Republicans have shown they aren't interested in any real compromise. They want it their way, NEVER Obama's or Hillary's way, simply on moron principles that are about as childish and racist as you can get.