Phi for All

Right, but when you're posting on a science discussion forum, evidence is better than guesswork and entertainment. Belief, other than what you can empirically trust, shouldn't come in to it.

OMG, I can't believe this thread is 20 pages long! On geocentrism, no less! I don't know what this has to do with the OP anymore, but has anyone mentioned that extra-terrestrial civilizations may not have dealt with the discovery of what you can do with uranium as well as we have? We still need to tread lightly, but the threat of destroying ourselves in global nuclear war diminishes as time goes by. But there were times when we could have pressed the buttons. Surviving knowledge that increases your destructive power by several orders of magnitude may not be easy, and may account for why we haven't seen any signs of colonization in the galaxy in the hundred years or so we've been looking seriously.

+1 for that. Perspective like this is very conducive to breaking up the jams that often block our understanding.

! Moderator Note Please cite sources when you copy/paste, otherwise it looks like plagiarism. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nioshtic-2/10007808.html

Imo, any leader who is still going on about pot is most likely trying to put together privatized prisons in their state. Potheads are the most cooperative, profitable prisoners EVER.

You don't think the media moguls, the bankers, the warmongers, would rather have Clinton as President than Sanders, if they can't elect a stronger conservative? The spin isn't from the left, that's my point. It's from the megacorps, designed to affect those who lean more liberal. It's still corporate maneuvering, looking for favorable, exploitable circumstances. Minimizing the candidates they need to invest in. Figuring the best means to take full advantage during a shift in power.

I believe it's part of our Constitution, which the Republicans drape themselves in when it's convenient, to allow the Christian Church to influence the US State as much as it wants. There really is no separation of the two. Or, I could be listening to too many Republican news sources, and am wrong.

Generally conflicted, and that makes us look thick sometimes. Our media excels in spin, so the same thing can be said to all, but it's going to be interpreted in multiple ways, depending on your ideology. None of the news we get in the States is simply informative; it's all got spin to it, left and right. It's all been boiled down to sound bytes they know will cause an emotional, irrational response that keeps viewers viewing because they're never informed enough to form a reasoned judgement on what they see and hear. American media rule of thumb: a cache of gang weapons being found is a better story than the dog that saved a drowning toddler. Fear boosts profit.

The ironic part is that the GOP seems so focused on our right to bear arms that they're able to pretend this isn't a huge invasion from big government, all justified by a fear of retaliation that's less probable than being killed in a car wreck. It's government sticking it's nose into business it shouldn't, contrary to every Republican platform plank in the last 100 years.

This war on terrorism is the greatest destabilizing force the US has ever come up with. It practically guarantees our corporate interests can act with impunity to rape the countries we plunge into chaos. Business models applied to war, which means it's only going to grow bigger and better and more profitable with time. And when you can bribe the government into helping you overcome ethical hurdles, and turn them into law, you have complete control over trillions in taxpayer dollars.

! Moderator Note Just a single thread per topic, please. Trust me, it works out better for you this way.

I remember reading somebody postulating that gravitons could be used to create a pulse like a drumbeat. Iirc, it was being proposed as a method of contacting parallel universes, assuming gravity was a force that might be common to all of them. I still don't see how it could be done, considering these waves were created by enormous BHs orbiting each other 75 times a second just to produce these weak signals. How do you make that practical? Even for a single universe, I don't see this as a practical way to communicate.

Sen. Rubio, a Republican candidate for president, just came out against Apple, saying, "Ultimately, being a good corporate citizen is important." Do good corporate citizens ignore ethics and fascist tactics? I didn't know that about them.

Sen. Rubio just came out against Apple in the terrorist phone case. He says it's a "tough issue", but "ultimately, I think being a good corporate citizen is important." "A good corporate citizen" doesn't question the government when it asks for unethical license, I guess is this incompetent's stance. Well on the road to the nationalization of all businesses that have been formed into corporations. Fascism at its finest.

HHO is Brown's gas, and afaik, running engines on it is a scam. Iirc, it's also very dangerous to store.

This is how it already works. Both LPG and gasoline don't burn the liquid, they burn the fumes (gaseous). The liquid form doesn't aid combustion, but is used for a much more efficient storage medium.

Considering that note was post #3, and the thread has 15 more posts after it, you have a funny definition of "stopped in its track". I really hope you start realizing we don't want a lack of rigor to turn this site into those you may frequent when you aren't here. Those sites are a dime a dozen, filled with all kinds of guesswork and wishful thinking. That's not what we're about here.

Can you link to these "gaseous propane powered vehicles" you're getting these figures from?

Can you link us to information regarding buses using gaseous propane? Everything I see is using LPG.

How did you avoid the dimensional analysis errors using US gallons as a measurement of a gaseous substance?

! Moderator Note OK, this is ridiculous. You have enough people telling you they're interested in hearing your theory, not peripheral dribs and drabs that can't be answered meaningfully without the fuller picture. You need to decide if you want to do this the right way, and let those you came here to listen to give you some meaningful dialogue about this idea you have. If you don't want to share it, then don't bring it up again. If you want to share it, you should open a full thread in Speculations about it, and be as rigorous as you can. You need to realize how many people come here with ideas they can't support. Most end up being wrong, by a vast majority, but that's not really the point. The point is treating an hypothesis the right way, so you can more easily see where you're right, and where you're wrong. This hasn't been done so far with this "teaser" approach. It's actually a disservice to you, and all who are participating. So you decide if you want to step into the saddle or just keep walking this horse to no purpose. This thread is closed.

Or not.

1. Definitely not mute since we're talking about it. If you mean "moot", I disagree. It's not debatable really, and it's not that the subject is too uncertain. Because: 2. It IS non-realistically debatable, but not for the reasons you list. It's not debatable because of the intrinsic nature of god(s) to be magically unobservable. Without direct empirical observation, we can easily attribute anything claimed to be from gods to natural causes. Trying to disprove god(s) violates methodology that requires a theory to be falsifiable. Not false, but capable of being shown to be false. You can't do that with god(s) who can't or refuse to be observed. So actually, the science "side" of the debate is that it can't take a side if it can't observe supportive evidence to form an hypothesis, conduct experiments, and make predictions based on consistent, repeatable outcomes. Science is NOT the tool to use in this instance.

Still, you have a Humanist outlook to the situation, it seems. For instance, if you're not a stamp-collector, you view religion the same way you view collecting stamps. You don't hate stamps or those who collect them, you just don't participate. Simple. And so, while we are completely open to some evidence for or against, until that's available, we can focus on humans and their development in the universe. And leave stamps and gods to those who're interested.

I think the reason the laryngeal nerves are the way they are isn't because they serve a purpose being inordinately long (it's only inches from the brain to the larynx in humans, for instance), but because there was no overriding reason to make them shorter. The energy expense in rerouting that nerve to be shorter obviously isn't worth it, and so it doesn't change. Not in any tetrapods. No matter the length of the nerve (we're pretty sure it's longer in whales, and predict it was longer for sauropods, although that type of cell deteriorates too quickly for fossilization to tell us much).