Phi for All

We aren't there by a long shot. But one thing that's greasing the skids downward is that the mega-multi-national corporations we give charter to, and place so much confidence in, don't have any allegiance to the US. They use our ports, roads, and other infrastructure while hiding profits from taxation offshore. Some of these corps spend more money to avoid taxes than they actually pay in taxes. To me that should be considered treasonous. If we can't count on these businesses to be loyal to the People and country who make them possible, if we give in to Marco Rubio's vision that ultimately it's best to be a good corporate citizen, then we'll follow them to the edge of the cliff, where we'll have to jump while they simply shift their HQ to someplace they'll be equally unloyal to. Our economy is at the mercy of profit, and we're just hoping the bean counters don't decide the US isn't worth it anymore.

This is why not today. Today we have the scientific method, and for that any god(s) would have to be observable. They never show up, and the scientists have learned to just wait them out. Falsifiability says it has to be possible there aren't god(s). Until they can be observed, you can't falsify them, so you can't really test god(s) with science. It's not possible on a fundamental level. The title isn't appropriate on a science site. It should be "Food for Thought of God". Theory is vastly more rigorous.

! Moderator Note Sorry, no advertising allowed. Not our thing. We discuss science though, so you're welcome to stay and obey the rules of discussion.

A jumper cable walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Hey, I'll serve you tonight, but don't start anything!" A skeleton walks into a bar. He tells the bartender, "Gimme a beer and a roll of paper towels, please."

A cowboy walks into an empty bar. "Where is everybody?" he asks the bartender. "They're at the hanging," says the bartender. "Who're they hanging?" asks the cowboy. "Brown Paper Pete," says the bartender. "What kind of name is that?" "Well, he wears a brown paper hat, a brown paper shirt, brown paper chaps, and brown paper boots." "Well, that's weird. What are they hanging him for?" "Rustling."

What are you doing to discover these particles? Have you formally studied these things you're telling us "we are not even trying to discover them"? If you haven't studied much science, how can you say we reject new particles found as "a fault in the equipment"? I think, because you didn't study science, you have a caricature in your mind of what it means, what it does, how it works. I think you now realize you should have studied, but you don't want to go back and do all that hard work. So now you're hoping science will suddenly become useless because some new particle is discovered, and you'll get a chance to start at square one with everyone else. It's not going to happen. You should study mainstream science while you're waiting for it to be challenged.

Many of us would say that being awesome has nothing to do with unconventionality. It has to do with removing the dross from life and focusing on what we know beyond doubt is our best investment, ourselves. What you call unconventional, I would call getting back to basics. We evolved high intelligence in part because of our cooperative nature as a species (or the high intelligence allowed us to see the benefits of working together). We're very good at seeing what needs to be done, and then getting a group of us together to make sure it happens awesomely. We're naturally a species that can combine cooperativeness with an awesome communication skillset, tool use, and all the things high intelligence has made us aware of. To me, being awesome as a human means being part of a whole that's watching out for ways to bring out the best in ourselves. I'm a firm believer that mankind does better when there are fewer people at the extreme ends of wealth, and more people enjoy a higher level of basic prosperity. And any time someone learns a bit more of the accumulated human knowledge that so many have dedicated their lives to compile, I think that's really awesome. Spittake. Monitor wet. Very funny.

We're all waiting for zombie Dwight Eisenhower to roll over, rise up, and feast on the tiny brains of the military industrial complex he warned us about. I picture him with a hand in each of the heads of the CEOs of GE and Lockheed Martin, looking at us bitterly, growling, "I TOLD YOU SO!"

"Assuming may indicate" is a tricky mind game. That something fits better in one hand than the other is supportive evidence that the item may be a tool, but alone it's not nearly enough. "Assuming" means you've jumped to the conclusion that it's a tool, while tricking yourself that handedness is an indication rather than one bit of evidence. Do the edges seem capable of work? Do they seem worn, from repetitive use? Is there other evidence that supports your tool hypothesis? Can you predict what work it might have been capable of assisting with, and test your predictions against reality?

Do you mean some discovery that would make mainstream science useless, and take us all back to square one so we could all learn the new paradigm together?

Or, "That book must be horrible, judging by its cover."

You mean, duplicate the data multiple times, so you get ten tries with each set?

So what? That simply tells us he's not planning to invade Iraq. He's still talking about doing all the things that have proven to grow terrorism and US involvement in military actions in the Middle East, only more so. Who do you think he's going to be waterboarding (is that even torture, honestly?). The first time I remember hearing about Donald Trump, the government was suing him over discrimination against blacks in apartment buildings he owned. He does NOT care about helping ANYONE financially except himself, and there is so much evidence of this out there. He receives more charity than he gives.

I'm wondering how difficult it would be to apply for admission as a refugee. I'd love to flee fascism in the US by moving to Germany.

Yes, well, on closer reading, perhaps you're right. Wouldn't be the first time. We got a tad carried away with process. Also not the first time. I saw your test, so I guess the answer is, you can't use Latex in the title, it's a very limited little box of options. I would suggest a reference to the formula instead, or some other worded title.

Of course there are. I think a Trump presidency would be worse than W's when it comes to removing obstacles to profit that were originally set up to protect People instead of corporations. He'll open up new areas of greed and corruption, new ways to use the Constitution for toilet paper, he'll fulfill the industrial-military dream of full-scale chaos and destabilization while growing the War on TerrorismTM brand to its maximum business potential, all the while giving more power to govern to the mega-corps. Fear, fear, fear, but trust the Donald to take care of you. You're going to have to give up a lot for that care. Mostly integrity, competency, and stuff like that we weren't using much anyway. But I still remain fairly certain none of this is going to happen. Ultimately, I'm going to trust that People won't give up and actually vote T.

I can't stress enough how professional information at a critical time can help overcome fear and ignorance.

He's ham-handed, extremist, and boorish. He would be the ugly American President caricature in the next two decades of foreign films. If there are any foreigners left to make them. Trump. We can only guess what's in it for him.

Some of our members think they have this science superpower.

An order of magnitude on the possibility? That makes no sense. How do you measure the possibility of special?

He's using strawmen as goalposts, then he moves them. Clever. Not.

Stupid?! I will assume you're speaking for yourself, and not trying to insult the membership. I didn't. I posed it as a possibility of why you aren't seeing extraterrestrial civilizations, and I supported it with known facts. You're the one wandering into the weeds with this latest fallacy-filled guesswork.

No. You missed the mark if you think this kind of guesswork is interesting or productive to a scientific discussion. Most here prefer explanations that have support from actual evidence.

I don't think the gist has been gotten. I was making the observation that conquering uranium reactions prior to interstellar travel may be so difficult that only a very cooperative, communicative species can survive it. We may have a leg up on extraterrestrial species that way, considering cooperation and communication are two of our best evolutionary traits.

We don't need to speculate on that. We have a very good history of development of nuclear technology, and we know how dangerous the path was for us. Crazy has little to do with it. It's about the fission reaction of the element, and what you can do with it once you think you've harnessed it.