Phi for All

Engineering-wise, we have the NIST report. Do you have problems with its rigor or methodology? Word of caution, we won't be talking about conspiracies here in the science sections. What and how are better questions for science. Why is more for philosophers and tabloid journalists.

For what reason are you imposing such austerity? I keep picturing a single human on Earth, free to do anything it's capable of doing, breathing air, drinking water, eating food, sheltering in a cave. It's going to live out its life and then die, and become food for another creature. End of story. I think we need other humans. Bare necessity, a mate for procreation.

Ooooh, jam is good!

So if I've got those, what do I need with the rest of you?

You're taking a very broad article about new frontiers and applying it's message to your very specific idea, and concluding that by that metric alone, your idea has merit. The data is correct but the information you're drawing from it is flawed, does that make sense? One big problem I see is your last sentence. It tells us many things. You don't know very much about physics, yet you somehow feel comfortable telling physicists about the credibility of their profession. How does that work? We certainly don't mind talking about science, that's what the whole site is all about. But we like to be a bit more grounded, more rigorous in discussing ideas. We need something testable to begin with.

Bet I can make you blink, nyuck nyuck.

I asked for sharks with lasers on their heads, and I get frikkin' ninja lawyers!

A person at that point in their life isn't going to be thinking about suicide rationally. I'm pretty sure the impulse is almost purely emotional, and we know what happens to reason in the face of strong emotion. You need a stronger emotion to cancel out the first, imo, like pointing out the harm it would do to spouses, friends, and children, people who don't deserve to be punished like that.

So many of your "facts" are wrong. You use terms like "dimension" and it's clear you don't understand them in the context of science. There is no "infinite dimension" for you to navigate, dimensions aren't alternate universes. You've made a basic error of claiming a frame of reference for photons, but there isn't one because there's no frame of reference where they're at rest. You're basing your ideas on flawed data that you've turned into flawed information. It's like you're building a bridge using defective materials, using a process that doesn't guarantee structural safety. You're coming to a science discussion site, trying to rewrite mainstream science, and you're talking gibberish while you do it. It's like you've come to the pool hall to tell all the pool sharks how the game is really played, and then you proceed to talk about ten-sided tables, cues made from cardboard, and square billiard balls. To everyone else, it's pretty obvious you never went to pool school, but it does take balls to walk in and tell everyone they're wrong, so we're trying to help you out. I hope you're going to mix some listening in with your adamant stance process.

Conservation is far more sacred to me. I'd say the OP's premise is transparently unilluminating.

It would be better if nobody had to waste their time with religious ignorance masquerading as science. I don't think you should be here, and I don't want to deal with your kind of dull-minded crap anymore. People like you are taking the quality of this site downhill, and dammit, we're just not going to take it anymore.

Fun activities using science would include things like model rocketry, building electronics kits, and running chemistry experiments. Funny activities using science would include things like making tennis balls out of lead, putting graphite on the eyepiece of a microscope, and using a Van de Graaf generator to make someone's hair stand on end.

To me, if something is sacred, it means it's easily broken so be careful with it (like vows), can't stand much scrutiny (like faith), deserving of special consideration because it's connected with god(s) (like religion). All in all, when people consider something sacred, they usually also consider it above criticism.

I'm a big proponent for the peaceful use of space. If we start amping up the attempts to contact ET life, there could very likely be a big counter-movement to weaponize the environment, for security and safety. I'd rather wait until we have a bit more infrastructure options offworld before calling more attention to ourselves, and I'd like to at least start with peaceful intentions when we begin boldly going. Remember that right now, private industry is paving the way for more commercial investors (aka, the megacorporations). They're starting to take the lead on space development away from public programs. Governments are certainly still firmly involved, but when the money starts going offplanet, will the governments be going along with the private companies moving out into the system, to regulate and maintain a certain standard other than profit? And if the mega-corps are out there with regulation enforcement spread very thinly, do you want them to be weaponized?

Magic gears and motors are pretty sweet if you can get them on sale. They're even better if you can just imagine them. Not that you'll be able to, but you need some maths to match the conclusion, "Therefore, there is an output of more energy from this system than it's input of energy". There are formulae you can use for this.

! Moderator Note We don't need to go offsite for opinions on Christianity. Links deleted, let's not go there.

You can tell he's hooked when he runs through all the physics threads and starts trolling biology.

This is what knocks the whole idea out of science's hands and turns it into your opinion, Matt. Do you think this is a hard thing to do? Anyone can change definitions to exclude just about any objection. It's what I mentioned about moving the goalposts, something else you ignored. This is what religion can do, make up answers that fit the questions based on circular reasoning and guesses about things you can't possibly know. This kind of thinking requires faith, not scientific objectivity and trust.

! Moderator Note Everyone please refrain from attacking individuals, and save your attacks for ideas. Also, if there is a dispute over stolen FB pics, this is NOT the venue for it. If a discussion is no longer productive for you (anyone), you can always opt to stop posting in it. Discussing not posting in it is posting in it. There's no need to respond to this note, but you can report it if you object.

What kind of environment are we being productive (or not) in? Big breakfasts work pretty well if you're working in the fields baling hay or something. Not so much for the office worker or student. I think a big part of productivity is understanding the nature of your work environment, and making choices that work well with that foundation. Many small meals throughout the day is a great convention for people who don't do physical labor very much. It keeps you satisfied but never too full. I'm reading more and more that multi-tasking is synonymous with "fooling yourself". Many people think they're great at it, but when tested they perform equally poorly at all their tasks, or it takes them longer than if they were to simply focus on things one-at-a-time. I'm one of those people, I've always thought I was highly capable at it. I've tested myself informally, and I can definitely say that multi-tasking is NOT as efficient for me as I always believed. And it's become synonymous with efficient workers who can handle more than one thing at a time, like focus is a bad thing. I think it's very detrimental that we revere multi-tasking as a sign of intelligence and a good work ethic. I think it's been promoted this way by corporations who want you to put in more hours, and not complain when they give you more work on top of what you already have. And if you're going to focus more, you also need to get in the habit of taking a two-minute stretch every hour. I find it helps the eyes, especially if you're in front of a computer, it helps the brain reset and perhaps kick a few things loose, and it's good physically to move around and let your body know you don't need any adenosine right now, which is usually what makes you drowsy sitting at a desk too long.

I'm in awe. I mean, if you really break this down, it's an awesome example of the effect Mssrs Dunning and Krueger have been studying. Use of belief instead of reason. Doesn't have the science, can't explain it, but just KNOWS he's right and the science community is wrong (and misguided, and slow, and doesn't have his intuition about these things -- none of them, ever in history -- NONE). Blaming the scientific community for the masses' inability to handle college-level physics is new, though.

Matt, you say you want to "fully debate" this issue and come to a conclusion about your idea, but you seem to want to come to a specific conclusion, and it can only be one that you agree with, and that's causing some problems. You want people to agree with you. People so far don't see this the way you do. You've been told you aren't looking at this objectively, they've told you why, and the only response they get is a repetition of your idea (which you keep insisting is a scientific theory, no matter how many times people correct you). You insist that we "debate" this idea with you in a way that you can accept, because you have trouble making yourself understood due to mental disorders that make it difficult for you yourself to understand things. You're going to have to accept that you aren't explaining any of this in a way that makes sense scientifically. When someone tries to explain why it's wrong, you simply redefine your terms so you become right. But this "being right" is just in your mind, because the rest of us are sticking to accepted definitions. You did this with me earlier, even though I asked you not to. I told you about a specific instance of inspiration that didn't fit your patterns, so you redefined "inspiration" so it couldn't happen to me without it being part of your "reward system". It's like you're claiming nobody can kick the football through the uprights, and when they try to show you it's possible, you keep moving the goalposts so they can't.

"I understand too little too late. I realize there are things you say and do you can never take back. But what would you be if you didn't even try? You have to try. So after a lot of thought, I'd like to reconsider. Please... If it's not too late... Make it a cheese-burger." --Lyle Lovett, Here I Am

It's hard not to be insulted by those who think this is what theory means. It's like, "Dude, this took me like, eleven minutes to think up in the shower this morning, what do you think of my theory?" And why does it so often show up with the "We don't know everything, so we must not know anything" line of reasoning?

Inspiration sometimes comes upon me unawares, like seeing something that sparks an idea about something else. It's not a do-this-get-that type of moment. If I'm inspired looking at something to figure out a problem, how is that part of any type of reward system? And please don't redefine "reward system" just to exclude my example.