Phi for All

! Moderator Note Please don't use someone else's thread to advertise your own. Also, your concept is speculative, and doesn't belong in the mainstream sections. Please confine unproven hypotheses to the proper section. If you respond to this modnote, it will be removed. Report it if you have a problem with it, so the thread is not further derailed.

Well, I'd hate to get ripped in half a millisecond before I was vaporized, just because I forgot and used my atomic punch. I just want to be responsible about where the other half of my body goes.

It's quite possible. I don't know how to deal mathematically with the assumption he's making, that there is data every senior knows. It's not correct. Is he the type that would respond to a formula, or would you rather call him out on bad reasoning? If he were posting here, I'd ask him to provide a link to the data every senior knows... including him. Then I'd quiz him to make sure.

It sounds like throwing a punch fast enough to have that much energy would rip you in half (a solitaire game of crack-the-whip), since the recoil takes effect before the punch lands.

It's not a physics problem, and I'm not sure math is the right tool either. It's more of a logic problem. There's no list of data that every senior knows, not even just the seniors at your school. So there's no way to establish "...you should know that". If such a list existed, then by definition you would know all the data on it because you're a senior. Or, if the list existed, your troll could claim you weren't a senior if you didn't know all the data on it. But, your troll established the antecedent "You're a senior" right away, so he's actually contradicting himself with his comment.

I'm going with "what?", since you had to first defend the question with an empty assurance that my future president isn't a monster.

! Moderator Note Private message is not fine, this is a discussion forum with members, both amateur and professional, and we all prefer more transparency. Also, you're ignoring evidence that's being presented because you claim it lacks detail, which it does NOT. You're encouraged to ask questions, but please don't try to claim you have new science when it's clear you don't understand what mainstream science (our absolute best current explanations) is trying to tell you. And there is no truth in science. Just the explanation best supported by evidence. Please don't respond to this modnote in this thread. Report it if you object.

Absolutely. Reason alone might tell me that it would be in the best interests of my survival to eliminate at least half the world's population so I'll have more resources. My emotions would never allow that. There are probably too many examples of this to list comprehensively. In just about every example I can think of, removing either emotion or reason from the process leaves you with flawed decisions.

If you make enough for reconstructive knee surgery, you'll be farther along than everyone else who's made this claim.

It might help to know what you're looking for in such a list. Are you trying to show that reason isn't the best tool in every situation? Perhaps you should come at this from the other direction. Can you list examples where an emotional stance is better than one arrived at by reason? I used to think emotion and reason were completely separate in their various processes, like Plato and his horses pulling in opposite directions, but I find more and more that we function best when one tempers the other, and decisions work best when a blend of reason and emotion are used. Both are connected; reason helps channel chaotic emotions, and emotions give motivation to clinical reasoning and help us prioritize what's important to us.

If you could generate that much power with a punch, you have to also pretend you had a body that could use it. If your arm were traveling fast enough to deliver a blow like that, your fist wouldn't survive the trip. It would have to be moving so fast that, for a jab that's only going a few feet, you'd probably leave everything but bone behind, all the soft tissue would stay at your side while your skeletal arm slid right out. The bone wouldn't survive much longer. I don't think the punch would ever land, but it wouldn't have to.

In a Red Herring sort of way, or did you have something specific in mind?

In a discussion, a basic premise is that your viewpoint might be sound enough to convince someone it has merit and should be considered. When we talk to people about a subject that offers a perspective that can shade opinion, a reasonable person keeps an open mind. You often discuss religion with others while making it clear that your mind is already made up, that GOD IS THIS, GOD IS THAT, THIS is the WAY things are! This is known as preaching, or soapboxing. Like anyone else discussing religion, you have nothing solid, no evidence that supports your stance more than any others, yet your claims are adamant and assertive, like you're stating Truth. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you seem to be saying there's no way you aren't right. Rational discussion assumes you're willing to be reasonable and listen without automatically dismissing other stances. I don't think it helps anyone's understanding when you treat your viewpoint like plate armor, and everyone else's viewpoints like arrows.

HEY! When you're discussing something with a group of people, what would you do if one of them suddenly blurted out such a preachy, soapboxing statement like this? You can't discuss it with them, since they're so adamant about it they don't even seem to listen. You assume so much about something few people know anything for sure about. THAT'S why soapboxing is against our rules. We can't talk to you when you're like this.

--from Words Can Change Your Brain by Andrew Newberg, M.D. and Mark Robert Waldman ! Moderator Note Please don't copy/paste copyrighted material without a citation, or a link to the original work. Otherwise, it looks like plagiarism to us, and that's against our rules.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion site. Driving traffic to your blog is against our rules. Is there something about respiration you wish to discuss? Otherwise I'll have to remove this post. Thank you for understanding.

As long as you aren't speculating on some kind of anti-gravity based on not knowing where your feet are, it should be OK in the mainstreams.

Bruno da Silva has been suspended for a week for his fixation about doing a favor for all of us suffering creatures by destroying Earth, since it sort of violates our rules about the discussion of committing a felony.

ROFL, I thought for five minutes trying to come up with something like this, and was just overwhelmed by the options. Excellent Choice! I think J.C.MacSwell should open a thread on Warner Bros Physics.

Et voila!

New stuff that goes up has to have an exit strategy for when they reach the end of their usefulness, but you've put your finger on the real problem. Nobody wants to pay a penny to clean up the old stuff if it means admitting you might be liable. An international fund that removes debris based on which bits represent the biggest dangers would probably help a great deal. I just feel like if we don't keep working to fix it, we're inviting all those horrible movie plot tragedies along every time we use space as a resource. Murphy's Law rules supreme out there among the multi-million dollar investments and the little bits of junk.

I know, and part of me feels horrible about a situation where ignorance of science is being used in such a plug-ugly way. I thought at first it was just because I favor expansion and exploration for the human race, but now I realize it's because Bruno da Silva has such a hideous approach to one of the most beautiful things I can imagine. He asks questions about science the way someone would ask about the Mona Lisa if they just wanted to wipe their hands clean on it.

We've discussed it here. Iirc, the best of the "sidle up to it" scenarios involved attaching a tail to the debris so it slows down due to drag and eventually burns up. I liked that one because it seemed like you could re-use the craft instead of having them latch on and drag the debris down with them.

Probably straying over into Psych, but is there more to it than "you need to suffer so you appreciate happiness more"? There are many opportunities for understanding and knowledge when we're suffering, if we can see from that perspective. But is there a physiological reason for dwelling on the suffering, for allowing it to consume your thoughts (assuming you aren't actively being tortured or something)? I suppose I'm referring to the average person who claims life is all suffering and pain. Great example. And smaller amounts of fear can keep us on our toes, keep us wary and watching for interruptions in normal patterns. So there are physiological benefits to emotional pain and fear.

There might have been some paint incidents since. That was one I remembered because it seemed so bizarre at the time. Btw, you aren't old, you're experienced and wise. Together, we put the "sag" in sagacious! The energies involved in these bits of debris are staggering when you think about it. Imagine getting hit with a steel bolt traveling so fast it turns to plasma! And you're right, the "splash" would just freeze there into the metal. I used the think the vastness of space was a bit scary, but that's what protects you from the real dangers of the unfamiliar energies out there. We definitely need to figure out how to clean up this resource. Space should be treated like fresh water and breathable air.