Phi for All

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).

! Moderator Note This seems like a good benchmark test. Answer this and it looks like we can make some actual progress in this discussion. I hope you can look back through the thread and see how much time was wasted because you haven't been able to give the members involved enough information to move forward. Can you now verify your own assumption?

You have to have a C average in order to be eligible to go to college through this government program, and you have to maintain that average for continued eligibility. Is that enough tightening, or are you going to start excluding People based on other criteria? This is about education, not morality or fear or welfare. This is about sharing the knowledge our species has accumulated, something that belongs to no single person or group.

Did I misread him? I thought he came out 4:1 against?

Are there other historical examples of a warrior civilization adopting unwieldy weapons? Incredulity alone tells me it's doubtful any trained warrior would go into personal combat with a weapon he'd observed killing more of his own people than the enemy.

I think Apple is behaving the way they should, ethically and legally. This is pure fear and coercive tactics used on a corporation, something many of them break under. Considering corporations already own the media in the US, creating this kind of data access to a major communications component, which in turn gets shared with a currently right wing, extremely hawkish government, I'd say we need more corporations who stand up to the fascistic maneuvering the way Apple has.

And I think it's admirable traits like that that should define the American People. What could be wrong with wanting to help your own economy, you own country flourish, and you with it (hopefully)? What's wrong with the promise that if our country provides us with meaningful opportunities for prosperity, that we'll do everything we can to keep the system prosperous? What's wrong is one whole side of the equation. If this were all math, you could do a quick dimensional analysis that would show we're using the wrong units of measure for prosperity. America doesn't do enough to provide all its People with meaningful opportunities in education and social programs that work, and lots of conservative Republicans equate opportunity with business but neglect preparing People for it, so we're loyal to something we wish could happen but often can't because of the way we're going about it. Does that make any sense? It's not all about checks in the mail. Look at the numbers, and decide if the small amount of People who linger in the system do it because all the system is doing is sending them checks, and might go further if the system went further, or if they should be ignored. Going to college is something many People would be very successful at, and successful because of, if only they hadn't been born into their present circumstances. We shouldn't deny knowledge to People who weren't as lucky as I was. That's how I feel about that. How about you? Again, if you agree, why vote against what you wish would happen?

I think we should look into whether or not it's true that the Donald had the 73rd floor of Trump World Tower remodeled for this very reason.

Ah, I used that wording purposely to prove a point. I was hoping it would irritate enough for comment. What if I said I think Republicans often equate competence with how well they're able to pass legislation that helps companies in their state provide jobs? That's a different spin on the exact same situation. The job packages usually come with all kinds of riders to erode taxation and regulations, and that only helps corporations, not People. It all depends on who's talking, and the way they say the same things differently. There is a lot of common ground between the People that the parties don't want anyone to think about, with the Republican party being especially vehement about it. They cringe when you say welfare, but nobody, no-bo-dy wants to see a widowed mother of three kids go homeless in this country, to starve amid such wealth. And some of us don't restrict our integrity and sense of justice to arbitrary moral icons. I don't see any Republican candidates who think American People are a better, more reliable investment than the Mega-Corporations that do so much to help their political careers. It's almost like the mega-corps have told them, "Don't worry about the People, we'll take care of them if you take care of us." But that's crazy. They'd have to control the media to pull that off.

Shouldn't the concept of competence to govern in a democratic republic be tied to serving the will of the People, and not business? Isn't free market capitalism supposed to be competent enough to get the job done no matter what obstacles they face? They've certainly shown throughout our short history that businessmen can withstand higher tax rates, much much higher than they are now. So competence to govern should be about how to make the most human lives count. Living People, whose potential can only be realized when they have the accumulated knowledge of our species at their disposal. In the richest country, competence to govern should be about ways to ensure prosperity for all, instead of unbelievable wealth for a few. I think the Republicans often equate competence with how well they serve the corporations that put them in office, how well they promote their party agendas. They are incredibly competent at the type of governance that takes away the power of the People's government, and slips it right across the top of the table to the corporate persons they're beholden to.

I am weeping that these words are on my science forum. If this is going to be your modus operandi, I don't think it will be good for your condition to continue. Everyone here is just going to berate you for this type of shit, and I can't think of a reason why they shouldn't, other than you've admitted to some mental instability (and that's not a reasoned reason). This site really isn't for you, unless you like to be constantly told you're ignorant about science and you should really stop posting unsupported garbage on a science site. I don't know how much you can take, but I'm really tired of seeing other members waste their time on your soapboxing. I'm not sorry for saying this. I'm sorry that what's being offered to you is being spurned. I can't believe you think your behavior is appropriate, but then I doubt I'm the only person in your life that thinks this way. This place is full of people who care about science, and were willing to discuss it with you, if you only had a less closed-minded approach. I have to assume that, if there's no change, you aren't interested in following the rules you promised to when you joined. I have to assume that you are here to rant with no point, and that you consider science to be "heavily into detail". I have to assume this behavior is going to continue to be a huge time-suck for our members, with no returns on the investment. You don't seem willing to learn. You are all too willing to preach.

! Moderator Note Moved from Science News to General Philosophy.

! Moderator Note It's clear you aren't reading what's being offered to you. As has been mentioned, you're no closer to seeing your mistakes after 5 pages than you were in the beginning. All I see are excuses about computers and language, and no supportive evidence for your explanation. I fail to see how you're any closer, considering you're still crying "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong". And the call for members to "cooperate with you" by NOT bringing up math is ludicrous. I'll check back at the end of the day. Support and progress, the thread stays open. Otherwise, we've stretched the rules for you quite a bit, but there are limits. The thread will be closed if you can't show why your simple explanation is better than current ones.

Absolutely NOT. I don't want it to include useless opinion and anecdote. I want it to focus on supportable explanations. Your anecdotes might be interesting elsewhere. They aren't useful here.

I'll never understand the intellectual dishonesty that let's some people "forget" evidence that doesn't support their position. I'm sure, even after this upbraiding, that forex will continue to spread the lie that makes his argument sound valid. I tend to attribute anti-science sentiments to those who found some reason not to study in school. They often spend years trying to justify their mistake by claiming science is wrong, often more years and more effort than it would have taken to learn mainstream knowledge. This leads them, inevitably it seems, to the problem of not knowing what they don't know, and building conclusions on very shaky foundations.

That's a poor analogy. M-U was designed to show that life was possible through chemical reactions in the early Earth environment. It had no obligations to form an intricate whole, when it had billions of years to work on it. Billions, not thousands. Except we see it every day, so your argument fails the reality check. Evolution is a fact, and the theory of Evolution describes its mechanisms. Sorry about what that does to your beliefs.

As a small, mass-produced device for personal use, it's pretty dangerous. You have to convert the raw heat to electricity to be more useful than just heating water, and anything that gets in the way of the beam (flaming birds?) represents a fire hazard. As a large, facility-sized device, I think they already do something like this with solar panels, focusing the light that comes in for greater efficiency. Sky Fuels is fairly close to me, and has some impressive products.

I see little point in selecting any individual for such a question.