Phi for All

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.

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.