Phi for All

In about a billion years, our sun is going to start burning more of the helium it's been converting from hydrogen, and the Earth will get about 10% more sunlight. This will basically turn us into another Venus, and our oceans will evaporate into space. Eventually, when the sun goes red giant in a few more billion years, the sun's corona will be out past Mars, so the inner planets will be gone. We need to find another star, but we'll be using this one for quite a while. We probably don't need to worry about the sun as much as keeping our own ecosystem viable until we figure out how to remain off planet.

Yeah, you're screwed.

Again, I think we're seeing the results of not having a formal science education. tonylang has obviously read quite a bit on various subjects, but without the formal study, he has no way to connect all the links, the bits of data he needs to convert to usable information. He has to rely on making up terminology, which is frustrating for people who use common definitions. A good education helps forge all the little links together into a chain. What we've got here are a few metal links connected with some kite string and wishful thinking to make a concept only one person on the planet understands. And since there are several obvious errors, one really has to wonder if tonylang would still think this way if he knew the mainstream science better. I don't think he would.

Banks are entitled to do this, but they want that money. I think, as long as you wrote out the amount in words on the legal line, that's what the bank would fall back on, regardless of the equation you put in the little courtesy box.

For confirmation purposes, banks usually require you to print the amount in words so they can see if the numbers and words match. If they don't, the written words usually take precedence.

! Moderator Note We can't keep discussions involving "souls" and other spiritual and religious concepts in the Psychiatry and Psychology section, unless the subject is discussing the pathology. Further, the non-mainstream references to parts of the personality require we move this discussion to our Speculations section. Please take the time to read the special rules we have for discussions here. Note further that if you want to bring deities into the discussion, we'll need to move again, to Religion. Please cite references when making claims. Stating things as fact when they aren't usually gets you called out. No need to respond to this note, but if you have to talk about it, Report it and tell me why.

We're a discussion forum. Just join in if something interests you, or start your own discussion about a specific topic. We'll get to know you, you'll get to know us, and that's the best way to make friends. Welcome!

You could joke that your brother and sister-in-law are honeymooning at the Pritt Glue Factory, or The Wax Crayon Museum.

According to the wiki article, Muslims recognize that evolution is real. They have more of a problem with not being able to claim Adam as the first human. It seems many Muslims are willing to attribute processes science knows to exist to their god. And apparently, they have no young Earth creationists, so they've got that going for them. Which is nice.

! Moderator Note Some day, not today, you may eventually see that it's not the concept that has been dismissed. You were asked in multiple threads on your anomalies to show where you ruled out more mundane explanations, and when you refused to offer that, it was explained why it's important. You still kept insisting what we were seeing were either aliens or an undiscovered terrestrial species. Now you've just sunk to persecution claims, and it's just not true. We were asking for more rigor in your methodology, not telling you there was nothing to see in your videos. In any case, it's obvious you're just phoning it in now, not even bothering to read replies, just responding with "Help, I'm being repressed!" So we're left with just this: your blurry UFO videos are all you seem to want to talk about, and nobody really wants to hear you make claims you're unwilling to support, so you can pick a different subject, or be more rigorous in your science, or even stop making claims and just discuss your UFOs, ask questions instead of make assertions you have no evidence for. If you can't do any of these, I think you should move on from here. It's not productive to come here, where we ask for evidence, and refuse to give us more than blurry videos as proof of plasma beings in the atmosphere. This thread's closed.

It reminds me of Bush II and giving military operations Islamic names (Operation Infinite Justice), blowing up mosques, and in general being the best recruiter of new terrorists the world has ever seen. The Donald's depth of knowledge in this area has obviously been sprayed on.

I think there should be. If we agree to the laws governing our particular part of society, and also agree to be a functioning member of that society, we should benefit from some rights that can't be taken away. If your country can ask you to die for it, isn't there something profound it can do for you?

Most of the help comes in the form of finally, after decades or centuries of fighting it and preaching against it, admitting that science was right about a particular theory. Evolution and the Catholic Church come to mind.

Does religion need to bring science to a complete halt for it to be an impediment?

So it would work if you threw in some other subjects. Maybe not Physics and Chemistry for primary school, but History and Music work. There's a good joke in there somewhere about giving grades to each other. Could get bawdy, or you could mention how they'll probably grade for household chores, cooking, clothing choices, etc. "I know for a fact my brother is going to flunk bathroom cleaning". There will never be a pencil around their house when you need one. Irony, that. On the other hand, before they have their own kids, they'll have a refrigerator full of artwork. Of course, the best thing about all of this is that, as they're teaching our children now, they'll also be passing along educator genes to their own children. Teaching evolution as they evolve more teachers! It's yours. The Best Man should get a gift.

I re-read what Greg H. said, and he didn't say believing or having faith was wrong. "So long as you don't base your scientific conclusions on that belief", is what he said. To be as objective as possible, science needs to be as rational as possible. Faith is strong belief with no rational support. You just believe, and you believe hard, but without evidence to support that belief and make it trustworthy. If you start looking for proof, is it still faith you're using? Faith is useful, just not in science. Trusting in an explanation because you can take it apart and understand it on a deep level, and verify how the explanation developed, that's what you need for science.

Are they both math-only teachers? Could you open the speech up to other education subjects? You could start with their "History" together, how the "Chemistry" came about, and how you're not allowed to talk about how they study "Physics" or make "Music" together. Maybe end with the line, "Today, I'm not subtracting a brother, I'm adding a sister, and I wish them happiness without division, and as much multiplication as they can handle."

Is there any more point in discussing this? Ten pages ago, conway asked for detailed reasons why dividing by zero must remain undefined. The more reasons he's gotten, the more he digs his heels in and insists he's right. This was obviously NOT a conclusion he reached rationally. If it were, he could be reasoned with, and this thread would have been no more than a couple of pages. He has an idea he feels is right but he doesn't know enough to know why it feels that way. He's made an emotional attachment to the idea, not an intellectual one, something that happens when you don't have enough data to analyze meaningful information. It's like only eating with your favorite spoon, you don't know why you have to do it, it's irrational, but it just "feels" right. It doesn't matter that multiple amateur and professional mathematicians, people who work with numbers all the time, tell him why it's undefined and must be that way. It's a deep explanation with many layers, and I think conway is only looking at the surface. Mainstream study equips one with an adequate shovel, but one must be willing to trade in their favorite spoon first.

Nerf the winner-take-all voting system. Buff by making it a proportional representation system, and stop electing the president by state. The game starts by defeating the evil Electoral College.

Can you elaborate on "Recently it was discovered"? Where did this information come from? Is it credible? If I had that same old comic book and wanted to increase the value of it, I might try something to get other owners to break the seals on their copies. Speaking of which, is the packaging airtight? Is there any way at all to legitimately poke a small hole in a corner? Would that reduce the value? A stylus reach flashlight ($20?) has a small light on the end of a flexible neck, so you could poke a hole in the corner, slip the head inside and get it underneath the cover. This should highlight any writing on the other side. I just tried this with a regular flashlight and the cover of my Space Symposium guide, which is a thick, full-color, glossy magazine-type cover, and I could see the writing on the inside cover. Would a buyer forgive a small hole in the packaging that was done for confirmation purposes?

Elevation (height) isn't measured north to south though, is it? The poles are NOT like a lower elevation. If what you're saying were true, gravity would be pulling things south or north instead of towards the center of the Earth. Think of the different nature of the poles. The Arctic is a sea surrounded by land, the Antarctic is land surrounded by sea. Which is colder, water or ice?

And you got all these "facts" from NOT studying science? I'm sorry, but there was a lot of process information you missed when you skipped those classes. The result is, you don't know what you don't know, and it's causing you to take separate bits of data and put them together incorrectly as erroneous information. It's a very common misconception that the BB was an explosion. It wasn't. That's one of your "facts" you have wrong, and since you haven't looked at the evidence, it's messing up the rest of your thinking. Now it's like you've just walked into CERN and told the scientists that particle physics is completely false because it's a fact that the Earth is the center of the universe. All the scientists are wondering why you didn't study more in school, because you've definitely goofed up somewhere. Seriously, this is like saying "Since I can't even imagine a beginning to the universe, there's no way it has one. End of story, don't even try to convince me otherwise, get that evidence out of my face, I can't hear you with my fingers in my LA LA LALALA!!" The real problem this poses is it tells us you've arrived at your conclusions emotionally, based on incredulity and frustration at a lack of reasoning process. You haven't reasoned out the specifics, based on what we know and have already tested and observed about our universe. Therefore, we can tell you all about the specific experiments showing that our ideas about time dilation are correct, but since you're emotionally attached instead of intellectually attached to the idea that it's wrong (we know this because you can't say why it's wrong, but you assert it as "fact"), no amount of reason and rational thinking will help you.

It seems like part of the professional manipulation mentioned in the OP. Corporations that can afford that kind of spin benefit from the lack of change conservatism spawns. It may not be the best thing for the market overall, or the best thing for the consumer, but it helps extend returns on investments when innovation is squelched. Of course, corporate conservatism means picking and choosing when to exercise that conservatism. It's definitely good when arguing about taxes and regulations, but it's so awkward when it comes to subsidies. I don't think most Americans understand conservatism. I think the pace of life is very fast, and they somehow think that putting the brakes on any way they can is the "safe" thing to do. In my lifetime, between 24/7 news and the new "conservatism" that sprang up in the Republican party after Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex, fear has sprung up everywhere. Parents can't let their elementary school-age kids walk home five blocks from the park, and yet we have more police and prisons than we did in 1965, despite overall crime being about the same. We have a prison-industrial complex now, that reams the taxpayers for everything from uniforms to food to bedding, all because conservatism tells us falsely that things have been going downhill for quite some time now.

Why does cold air sink? It's because the molecules in cold air are heavier than air that's hotter. Hot air is moving around more, less dense and more spread out. So gravity pulls the heavier cold air down. Where is the gravity pulling at the poles? At the equator? When you look at it like this, is there a bottom or top to Earth? If the poles are like the bottom, why hasn't everything been pulled down there?