Phi for All

You're right, I didn't even think about that, even though I was saying igNORance in my head.

Wilfnorant.

Does it change your idea if the part about light having infinite length is wrong?

Ignorance should work as the noun, but it doesn't. If we said "we don't allow soapboxing (which is the continued insistence that one is right without offering evidence), insistence works as the noun for insist. But ignore has that pesky qualifier that you're doing it on purpose, whereas ignorance is innocent.

Done.

This came up in a different thread when imatfaal tried to use "ignoral" to describe an instance of someone ignoring something. It follows the proper structure, but isn't in the dictionary. What would be the proper usage there? It's an odd case overall, I think, because "ignorance" means you don't know something, but "ignore" means you know about it but refuse to acknowledge it. So if you're guilty of an instance of ignorance, did you know or not? Or are ignore and ignorance not related?

My heart goes out to you, it really does, but you may have to start thinking that this is an excellent personal philosophy that you're trying to force into the mold of science. What you've been saying makes perfect sense to you, and you alone. This causes you to think it's "logical" and "scientific", but it's not, it doesn't fit ANY of the definitions. You can't explain this in a reasoned way that others can understand, so you've developed an emotional attachment to the idea that makes it darn near impossible to get through to you. Again, this makes a great personal credo, a good philosophy for you to live by, but there's nothing universal or scientific about it. It may just be for you alone, and if it works, that's good enough, right?

Medication is certainly one answer. Also differences in physiology. Psychologically, I think people can focus on pain and make it seem more intense and unbearable while others distract themselves from it and don't notice it as much. Sort of a nebulous premise, with some trivially false assumptions (the vast majority feel little to tolerable pain after an injury?!). You need to define injury. I would imagine different injuries in different areas cause different kinds of pain for different people. You aren't going to get any productive answers with those parameters. Anecdotally, I had two cracked ribs once, and they gave me little pain at all until I tried to button my pants or shirt, and then it was enough to drop me to my knees. Pulling the edges of the clothing together towards the middle made those ribs really scream.

Wow, you should start a blog.

So the light is traveling in a straight line through curved space-time. Like a train that can only go straight, but makes turns because it's following the tracks it's on. That's an argument from incredulity. If you want to remain skeptical, don't look into this further. If you want to be a skeptic (there's a difference), then you MUST figure out where the disparity is here, and either correct your misconception, or share your new insight by supporting the idea with evidence. You bring up a good point, but you also have those pesky misconceptions (light is moving, and it doesn't have an infinite length). I encourage you to satisfy your curiosity about this.

Well, we've just been waiting for you to realize this, and join us. First rule, not enough good people ≠ NO good people.

Precisely, due to the inverse ratio of math to tubers willing to watch videos with math in them. With video, when the numbers go up, your numbers go down.

This is starting to look like a fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-la kind of situation. Not sure it will ever get better. I will admit that our process here at SFN fails when a member refuses to take on board critique from working professionals. If that rich, broad road of knowledge is unappealing, if intuition and emotional attachment is preferable to expertise and rigor, there's not much we can do. We're a science discussion site that discusses science. The claim-that-everyone-but-me-is-wrong forums await you, sir.

I remember at least fifty people like you who said that ten years ago. The ego on you people is truly amazing. It's so clear to everyone else that your adamant stance isn't the product of rational thought. You have such an emotional investment in your idea that you're lovestruck, blinded by the light of your own imagined brilliance. And you can't admit all this work you've done is for nothing. That's always going to be a problem for you. Sorry, I truly am. Nobody has anything against you personally. We're just... sad, that a mind is being wasted for nothing.

When you're just a big puddle of wrong, we'll still love you.

If we want to keep a reputation for a moderate amount of rigor, we need to channel the guesswork in threads like yours into productive, reasoned arguments. You may base your new ideas on science that has been based on empirical evidence, but you don't supply support for these new ideas. So people keep asking you for it, and you keep misinterpreting the problem as a disagreement with what we "believe". I hate to give in to the pop-sci hostile takeover of the definition of theory/theoretical, but in this case, I think we probably do need to change the names of the physics sub-sections. Theories used to be the most trusted explanations we had; now they're just stuff we can just think up and then "believe" in.

I suppose it's assumed that any plant food, whether eaten directly or fed to an animal that is eaten, begins as a green shoot/stem of whatever, IF it grows in the sunlight. If you only knew the power of the Dark Side....* *Purposefully cryptic response in case this is homework

! Moderator Note I don't know what's gotten into you, sir, but you need to calm down and get a grip. This is completely unacceptable.

As I said, I don't want to hijack the thread, but life insurance works just like car insurance, you agree on the value with your insuror and you pay premiums that reflect the value. With medical insurance, you can't know how ill you'll be. More of a dig at US privatized medical insurance, but the real problem here is that normal life insurance is a consensual contract where both parties agree on what the life being insured is worth should it end. Gun insurance would only be making an offer to a victim or victim's family, one they should be able to disagree with.

I think you're both wrong. You CAN put a price on someone's life, that's what life insurance is all about. What you can't know is the price of someone's health. I don't want to go off on a tangent, though.

I can understand people having reasons why they don't want to comply with a specific directive. And, as mentioned earlier, some directives need to be challenged because they're unnecessarily discriminatory (like requiring employees to be 6' tall when there's no need for it). But to me it seems really simple in the BBE case, and others like it, and there should be NO exceptions for wedding rings. They're antithetical to the whole reduce-germs program. And female Muslim healthcare workers who require sleeves should NOT apply at BBE.

If the hospital announced this decision effective immediately, you would have a point. But as long as they gave workers enough time to either comply or find other employment, the fact is that the policy has merit (have we established that? Does the BBE system result in fewer infections?), and the criteria for performing effectively in that setting has changed. Also, I don't recall seeing any arguments regarding scars, or even tattoos, being part of the BBE policy. Perhaps I missed it, but I thought the concept was to reduce infection by not wearing anything below the elbows. This would include jewelry and clothing, but not scars or tattoos. I don't know of any religious reasons one could invoke that would justify a demand to cover up suicide scars, but I stop short of claiming there aren't any.

! Moderator Note No, johnny2710, it's not. You've been told why. You've ignored the reasons, and just kept changing your numbers without clarifying any units. The formula is worthless. You don't understand enough of the requisite science to do this kind of speculation properly. I'm very sorry, but you need to study more physics before you can contribute in this manner. It would be the same for me if I tried to give you financial formulas. You would tell me I don't know enough about finance, and you would be right. I hope this makes sense. Thread closed. Please don't open any more like this.

This is a bit dangerous, imo, because it's extremely difficult to know what's not important. Experience shows you the differences between more nuanced situations. For instance, we get a LOT of people who decided in high school that math was unimportant for them because they never wanted to be mathematicians. Then they find a latent interest in physics or chemistry or finance, and suddenly they don't speak the language, but they still try to make sense of it without math, and their lives are made so much more difficult because of that decision to treat math as "just not that important". Not everything in life needs to be balanced, but I think it's generally better to reach a happy medium, especially about things like housecleaning. You're right, not doing it at all and obsessing about doing it perfectly are the extreme ends and you need to find our where in the middle you're most comfortable. But if you get frustrated and then do nothing, if that's a pattern you repeat in situations other than housecleaning, then you're missing out on the most basic organizational skill of all, goal setting. When the extremes are not a good choice, you should set a goal for a compromise you can live with (which should always be greater than zero). The goal is to get the house really clean once (stop short of using a magnifying glass and a toothbrush where the baseboards meet), then set a daily goal of doing a quick 10 minute wipe-down/tidy of major areas to maintain the clean. This is just an example, the idea is to fix whatever goal in your mind so it's easily attainable, not so nebulous and dreadful that you let it degrade to "disaster" status. One thing I've noticed about people who have a hard time with social settings (and this is purely anecdotal, I have no studies to cite supporting this), they tend to think everyone is looking at them critically, judging them and their behavior, and it makes them self-conscious and hesitant to risk censure. And in general, that's not true. As long as you've conformed to an acceptable sensory pattern people can feel comfortable with (you're wearing decent clothes, you aren't scowling, you don't smell horrible, you seem approachable), people pretty much want you to succeed at being the normal human you are. A theater coach once told me something to counter stagefright. Performers get nervous about how people will react to their acting, they imagine everyone as a critic who will write a scathing review when it's all over. But it's not true. In general, audiences are looking to be entertained, they aren't looking for bad actors, they really want you to succeed. Don't you feel that way when you see a play? It's the same in social settings, most folks are just looking to share some stories and a few laughs, they aren't going to be overly critical of anyone unless they're given a reason. Soooo, actually, being paranoid that people are judging you might cause them to judge you. In this instance you can cause the outcome you most fear, but blame others for being judgmental, and thus miss any chance to solve the problem. Does that make sense?

! Moderator Note Please, your posts do NOT meet even our minimum requirements for rigor and readability. This is a discussion site, and we discuss science.