Phi for All

Mine was mostly plastic and cynicism, with no iron. But I paid a LOT for it, so that's nice.

! Moderator Note Could you start a separate thread on this, please? Not an admonishment; I'd like to have a discussion about the difference between criticism and calls for clarity. And I like your lemonade-from-lemons angle as well. And I'd like the OP to be from a non-staff member. If this interests you, of course. Thanks and sorry for the interruption.

Um, you should look at the little blue linked numbers on the page. They usually lead you to the source of the reference, which is usually a peer-reviewed study you can often check out yourself (I know, actual study, bleh). With a couple of extra clicks, you can quote the study rather than Wikipedia, but everybody else already knows about the reference links, so we tend to overuse it as a first source.

I think it's an all-too-human perspective that wants patterns to have defined edges. We want a color wheel with white lines dividing the colors so we can differentiate them. Without the white lines, the colors just subtly change as you progress along the wheel. You don't know exactly where blue stops and indigo begins, and that's not a trustworthy pattern. It seems logical (in the "this makes sense to me" redefinition) that there is a point where the atmosphere is, and one step further the atmosphere isn't. But given the complex nature of the system, it's far too simplistic to be a productive perspective.

You know, there are plenty of things science doesn't have the information to explain yet, but there's not one phenomena science needs an omnipotent being to explain. The title question is flawed from the start. Dimensional analysis says we're mixing units here. You can't measure reality accurately using empirical evidence AND goddidit.

! Moderator Note A reminder to all that this is a mainstream section. While much of climate science is affected by politics, our discussions here in the Climate Science section need to focus on the scientific evidence and not political opinions. If you can't support it, don't say it.

I fault them when they've exhausted ways to reduce and maximize reasonably, and turn their sights on reducing their tax burdens, or increasing subsidies (paid for by everyone) for already profitable companies, or shaving income from productive middle class workers to make executive salaries or stockholder returns look better. There are a lot of decent corporations out there who wouldn't squawk too much if regs were tightened, who only take advantage of sloppy loopholes other corporations have widened in their favors because it's been made legal. I wish one of the big guys would step up and call out these practices that don't invest in our economy so much as bend it over a barrel and sodomize it. I'd love to see a US company set a goal for benefiting US citizens through education. We won't stay at the top unless our workers are better educated. We will keep letting ourselves be manipulated until the majority are better educated. It's hard to pull the rug out from under someone smart enough to see what you're doing.

Explanations pulled from one's ass are a) not easily scrubbed clean by reason, b) usually accompanied by a lot of hand-waiving, and c) apt to stink upon close examination.

I used to rant about a minimum subsistence standard that nobody was allowed to mess with on the basis of worth, the way many like to treat welfare. I'd amend that now to include all the things you mention here (I was less liberal then). If you're a human on Earth in a big enough town, you shouldn't be homeless, you should have basic clothing and healthy food, access to healthcare, and education at any level through college. We could pay for this with some livable changes. Capitalism has still flourished when the 1% get heavily taxed on income far above the norm. The wealthy have continued to get wealthier under heavier regulations. The kind of wealth we need to get a handle on is the wealth that comes from playing the system. Like some stock and banking investments that have nothing to do with helping the economy grow a new business, and everything to do with squeezing out short term returns that just pillage those who actually work in order to benefit the investors. Like paying lobbyists to work with politicians to make it cheaper for you to do business, also at other's expense. Some of our biggest corporations make their highest margins on lobbying dollars. GE, usually among the top ten most profitable corps on the planet, spent US$84M lobbying Congress from 2008-2010, and during that time received US$4.7B in tax rebates. They were one of 30 big US corps that actually paid more money to lobby than they contributed in taxes during that time. We've allowed regs to become so relaxed, these companies have no allegiance to the capitalistic republic that gave them their corporate charter in the first place.

OMG, is that yours, or did you hear that elsewhere? Dang, I just got this irony meter for Christmas! It was an order of magnitude more sensitive than the last one that got broken. The technology just can't keep up anymore.

There are those envious of the wealth, but in my opinion, the problem is the mentality amassing great wealth engenders. If we all start out equally wealthy in terms of income, savings and investments, it seems rational and reasonable to pool a certain amount for the greater good. We build infrastructure, we invest in programs that benefit all that can take advantage of them. Really expensive things like swimming pools and airports and hospitals and national highway systems can happen because we all invest in them. Then, some folks start amassing wealth. They start pulling away from the commons gradually, build a pool for some privacy, maybe put their houses on bigger plots of land for some more insulation. Buy a jet so you don't have to fly commercially. It becomes a mindset, I think, where the wealth is an entitlement to cocoon yourself away in a world of upgraded luxuries. You start thinking that the police the public funds pay for aren't adequate. You need private security. You start thinking your money can protect your children better than public funded institutions. You pay to lobby to allow guns in your society because you think you can protect your kids better than the police can protect everybody's kids, which floods your whole society with dangerous weapons, ironically making it almost impossible for anyone to protect their families. For me, it's certainly not envy. I know some very wealthy people who don't spend their wealth on insulating themselves from the masses. They start foundations that benefit the existence of life around the globe, or support those that already do. I also know wealthy people who don't give a rat's ass about allegiance to a country or society, yet wrap themselves in patriotism for profit, because the wealth is all that matters to them. For me, the inequality of wealth is all about the irrationality of giving that much power to people who care less every day about me and those I know.

The pull is constant, but the matter is changing, heating up as it nears the accretion disk, right? As it heats, it's gravitational energy changes as well, so while the pull is constant, it's pulling on matter that's changing rapidly as it's being pulled. That's the way I've understood it. An earthly example that's not entirely dissimilar (maybe only in my mind) is a roasting marshmallow. The heat surrounding it in the fire is constant, but the marshmallow itself changes how the heat affects it. It starts out white and reflects a certain amount of the heat, but as it goes from white to burnt black, it reflects less and absorbs more.

It irks me when people claim things assertively after redefining a term so it has nothing useful or meaningful about it. "This is the way the universe is", 100% certainty with absolutely no falsifiability to even suggest we might be able to test such an idea. It's almost pointless to discuss since there's no evidence to reference. This particular rant is an affront to my humanist side, but my objections are really more about rational thinking. I can't imagine how this philosophy could make me a more effective human. And talking about it is 100% guesswork.

... and there goes our grant. So close.

So the OP has this info from a friend? And just asks a simple question, wanting to gain some knowledge? And then when the membership offers honest answers and a potential end to ignorance, the OP pulls out his dishonest agenda and we see the crackpot in innocent friend's clothing. You're not crazy, you're an intellectually dishonest person who is trying to explain something you don't understand by ignoring everyone else's explanation. That's what I think.

! Moderator Note Done, because trying to correct misunderstandings is nearly impossible when one insists on redefining familiar terms.

Then you must be unique (I think that's what you wanted to hear; does that make it bullshit too?). In my experience, even though pain from an injury doesn't completely go away while recovering, it lessens when you aren't thinking about it. A quick query of friends and family reveals the same, sorry for the anecdotal evidence. Many studies show the brain controls it all. Doesn't it seem reasonable that the brain can affect pain levels? I think it's possible I'm still right, but you're so fixated on some evil higher power who's out to get you, that you never stop thinking about it, and thus you get no benefit from distraction. I'll take you at your word for your observation, but only because I have little choice. My incredulity is based on how untrustworthy anyone's perspective about themselves is. We often wear heavy filters when we look deep inside.

! Moderator Note No perspective to indicate size. Could be a foot long. If you post any crap like this here again, I'll flag you as a spammer. We're not here to promote your channel. Thread closed.

I'm sorry you chose to react to the bullshit rather than to the legitimate questions I asked. Have you ever been distracted from the pain by something that takes your full attention, only to have the pain return when you think about it again? That's not fully physiological, is it? Two questions. Please answer.

This needn't be personal. I understand the frustration though, since this discussion has gone far beyond any definition of skepticism. Every response supports a conclusion that this is about denial.

! Moderator Note One of the Admin's Rules for Moderators is not to delete anything. Moderators only "hide" posts for valid reasons, like when people keep talking about everything BUT the science. They show up gray for us, and we can toggle them back into view if another Mod thinks it's unfair. No posts have been hidden in this thread. If you posted in this thread and it's not here now, I would fire your computer guru today. A reconstruction of what you lost would be more constructive than talking about losing it, at this point, please.

I have such a hard time with people who didn't study science, but now find they have the ability to redefine it in such a way that it makes sense to them, and nobody else. They cherry-pick what they think makes sense, ignore the rest, and consider themselves very clever. Does this happen in other fields of study, or does science get a disproportionate amount? "Bridges need to be rigid for strength, yet flexible when storms bring wind and rain. That's why the ONLY bridge-building material that should be used is pasta." "I've never taken any dance classes, but I know you have to have a lot of rope to spin yourself that fast." "It's clear to me that making food look good makes people fat, so my low calorie recipes are covered in dead bugs." Again, the problem isn't not knowing the science. It's being so incredibly certain your wrongness is right that you assert things without checking.

I find it incredibly intellectually dishonest that you have to change my words to refute them. That you think this is acceptable is unacceptable. If you continue to strawman and redefine and obfuscate, what do you hope to learn?

This seems like punditry. This is the kind of statement made by a talking head that gets other heads nodding. Somehow, the nodding stops a LOT of those heads from thinking about the statement, to see how utterly silly it really is. Can you imagine politics not being influenced by science?! It's bad enough that the ignorance runs this deep. Without some voice of reason, the voice of profit is the only one heard. The prior attempts to deflect from pertinent questions are also media tactics. We're talking about an objective consilience about a global dilemma, while you're trying to make everything anecdotal and subjective. That's not science.

! Moderator Note Via the Report feature, the OP has suggested that this work MUST be viewed as a whole, without picking at the individual threads in the process. This would require each participant in the discussion to have read the OP's book, from which our members have requested to be spared (Rule 2.7). Further, this is not how even loose peer review works. You can't expect scientists in any field to let you get away with "Read the whole thing in its entirety or you won't understand" when you start out with something like "First mix the cement with adequate amounts of milk". Picking at inconsistencies and errors, especially early on in an idea, is what makes a scientific hypothesis strong, or shows it's wrong. We require a synopsis of this idea. We're here to discuss the science of it, but we aren't here to broaden your readership, or listen to you gripe about past treatment. We want to discuss any viable science in your idea. We don't want to spend any more of this year or next on hearing how stupid scientists are, or how any bull-headed/curmudgeonly/stuck-in-the-mud stereotype you dream up keeps you from being able to discuss the science. We're waiting to discuss the science. Again, if you have problems with this post (or my "methodology"?), Report it rather than waste further Unified Theory discussion time on it.