Phi for All

Matter has mass, it takes up space. As iNow mentions, energy is just the ability to do work. I wouldn't go with the thoughts and perceptions angle. This is just a case where they took a popsci view of energy and matter, and then stuck a bunch of made-up wishful thinking onto it, hoping it will lend legitimacy.

! Moderator Note Not long when your obvious agenda is trolling and insults. This is a science discussion forum.

I did spend too little time on that answer, so thanks for the corrections. The bacteria synthesizes the vitamin. The vitamin contains cobalt as part of its function. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12 As for the question of why some people have different absorption rates, it seems the supplements are at fault. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminB12-HealthProfessional/ As for your argument that people won't be any worse off, can you show that those who are going to die anyway might be saved by vegetarianism? If not, why are we letting all the livestock die off?

Since all we see is light, how can anyone say light is perceived emotionally as love? I certainly don't love everything I see. And the good/bad vibration crap has been around for a while.

You didn't address what we do with the animals we have now. You can't just let them go, and if they don't represent any benefit you can't expect anyone to just care for them for free until they die of natural causes. What happens to these animals if we don't eat them? We had a deal. We take as best care of them as possible, so they don't have to survive in the cruel wild, and we get to eat them when they're ready. You're removing all care for the animals, unless you're going to wave a magic wand and invent someplace wonderful for them to go. You're talking about slaughter on a level that boggles my omnivorous mind. Right, since that's what the vitamin is basically, a bacteria that delivers cobalt. But deficiency in B12 is such a dangerous condition that can take years to fully develop. It's also clear that different people have different absorption rates. Trying to argue that everyone can live without meat has no basis in reality. We can be pretty sure Eldad's proposal is going to kill some people, and give others dementia and other mental disorders.

Tasty is an opinion, and worthless as a supporting argument. You cruel, sick, animal hater! If we can't kill the animals for food, we'd have to just let them die of natural causes. Nobody could afford to feed and provide healthcare for that many animals as pets with no compensation. How hateful of you! You're a monster! Cows and pigs on the highway, dying and causing other deaths as well. You really didn't think this through. Plus, you can't get vitamin B12 from a non-animal source. Even vegans use a supplement. So it's probably best not to try to force your horrible, cruel beliefs on those of us who respect and work towards ethical treatment of livestock. It's also pretty unrealistic to think everyone would just stop eating meat. Why don't you come down off your high horse and help where it's needed? More ethical treatment is a better next step than prohibition. You have to see the sense in that.

I suspect someone is trying to create a problem which their device solves. "If your snake squeaks..."

I'd settle for a bit less pointless analysis of so many posts. If it adds nothing, maybe it shouldn't be posted.

No. I quoted him from post #4. Please check before accusing me of editing other's posts.

So the H1B visa holders are being used to lower wages, and that is wrong in your book, obviously. So why do you so easily write off the ripoff of the middle class over the last 50 years? The way I see it, we were lied to about how badly companies were doing so we'd accept lower wages, all in an atmosphere where getting a new job was a precarious, uncertain, danger-filled experience. We were pawns in a game with a goal to lower wages, weren't we?

Do you have a list of benefits to iron fertilization? Inducing phytoplankton blooms, potentially increasing fish populations, possibly reducing carbon emissions, all of these things together increase the interest levels in investment. More benefits are going to make this process more appealing. How solid is your research? Can you let us know some of the methodology used? Are the costs an obstacle at all?

Best laugh all day!

This is you, right?

What makes this process attractive to those interested in increasing fish populations? That sounds like a potential source for funding.

OK, you're in charge of that. Now can we please take this 24 page embarrassment of a thread down, so it doesn't show up on the cover page anymore? This is NOT how I wanted to step up the rigor for 2016.

In every sector? For 50 years?! Do you realize what's being called for is a rollback to taxation and regulation plans that have unfairly been influenced by too much money? That nobody is suggesting money and land be taken from you as compensation? You seem to think socialism is going to storm your bastille or something. Calls for your head have been greatly exaggerated. We're just tired of you saying, "Let them eat shit!" Hey, did you know Obama grew the government THE LEAST of any president since Eisenhower? That makes him a token Republican, right? Why does he honor your planks but nobody in your party does?

Hey, good point!

I take it you've never looked at all those graphs that show how the middle class was burgled by their employers cutting wages while productivity remained high. You always dismiss evidence piecemeal, and forget that it's just part of a mountain of evidence that shows how undue influence, and illegal acts made legal with that influence, have almost broken the global economy. You tend to ostrichize the preponderance, and instead focus on anecdotes and rhetoric.

We do differ in this a bit. I think the underlying foundations should be trust, since lots of folks claim my money is theirs somehow. And I think that trust was broken by the people who lied and told us to accept lower pay, wages not tied to my ever-increasing productivity. I think the folks who did that manipulated all of us, made us think we had no choice. By your way of thinking, we got flimm-flammed by con artists, and that's our fault because we should have just agreed that that little bit they kept taking away from me was theirs, not mine. But some of us feel that needs to change. We want it to stop, and we want the folks who broke it to pay. And first we have to change the laws back so they don't favor the rich anymore.

So is there anything specific you think doesn't make sense that we could help with? How can we deal with the fact that you think it's wrong somewhere in the math but you don't know the math? I don't mean disrespect, but this seems like someone who admits he knows nothing about nails taking a quick look at a house, and then telling the architect that he must have used the wrong nails, because the house just doesn't seem right. How about school for math? Has anyone mentioned Khan Academy to you?

You really should become one before assuming that because you don't get it, it's wrong. You should assume that because you don't get it, you need to study it on a deeper level. And that's not really our function here. We can discuss it, but trying to raise your knowledge above a popsci misunderstanding level is really the role of a good school, with formal classes where you can get excellent science coursework. So far, you pose that something may be wrong, and then when shown your error, you insist you're right. I find it hard to follow discussions like these. They seem pointless, asking for answers and rejecting everything mainstream in favor of your own incredulity. This is NOT a healthy learning process, and I don't think you're well served by it.

I only use emoticons a couple times a year, so I'll forgive that you missed my sarcasm. This seems like the old irreducible complexity argument that's been debunked for a long time, but continues to be used by many creationists. Apparently "throwing random bags of chemicals into the cells" and ending up with a fertilization process is wrong just because if you wave your hands broadly enough, it makes things automatically physically impossible.

Don't go all fallacious on us now.

I can understand why you mistakenly think your money will be taken in the form of higher taxes (it's more than offset by the savings in NOT paying into higher-priced private options, of course). I don't get the property bit. Please explain how Bernie wants your property, so we can correct this obvious misunderstanding. Wanting your property sounds like a Trump maneuver (ding dong, Real Estate Mogul!), one he's been admittedly and gleefully ruthless about.

Forgive me then, your title's claim seems to suggest otherwise.