Phi for All

I would define "content" as a state of happiness born from satisfaction. Someone who is "satisfied" has had their needs met, has no need to be anxious about anything (future needs look like they'll be met), and doesn't need anything else to be happy. With this in mind, only enough money to satisfy needs is required. But here's where it gets messy. Are we looking for the most basic needs only? Am I supposed to live without music because it's physiologically possible for me to do so? Can we classify basic needs for everybody? Or does "content" have an automatic aspect of austerity? Does content mean "satisfied with the least amount you can have and still be happy"? Also, money needs to be defined. Are we talking about the exchange medium, which is difficult to live without altogether, or are we talking about wealth, excess money I don't need to survive, but can use to buy material goods I may want but don't need?

Like the space-based solar array, anything that could slingshot spacecraft at interplanetary speeds could also be aimed at the planet, with a denser, more destructive payload. If a tool can be used destructively, it's going to be viewed as a weapon in some situations. TSA won't let me carry a screwdriver, or even a hammer, on an airplane. My box cutter isn't welcome in the courthouse. And similarly, the communications satellite that one can argue has only benign purposes, could be used very effectively against your country if someone else has access to it and you don't.

That's not why I asked. Your friends don't have to know any science to be able to look at this thread and see that you are misinterpreting the criticism you're getting. I'd like your friends to look at this because I think they're going to see something like this: J: "I don't believe CO2 consists of two C=O double bonds." A: "But this goes against what we observe." J: "I refuse to consider it, because it makes no sense to me, and nobody can explain it to me, therefore it must be wrong." B: "Can you explain why you won't consider it?" J: "I'm tired of being trolled by you guys." C: "But you're making claims that need to be explained. We're not saying you're wrong, but there is evidence to support the mainstream concept, and you haven't supported yours, so...." J: "You guys won't give me the opportunity to explain." D: "Go ahead and explain now." J: "It isn't worth it to go through crap like this." ABC&D: "???"

I've been woken up and had the impression there had just been a loud bang. No repetition, and no evidence in the morning of anything that could have made it. I figure if my dog isn't whining to check it out, it must have been in my head. If the repetitions are somewhat predictable, you could start wearing a spycam to bed and record the episodes. My single childhood experience helps confirm this. For a good half hour after I was woken up (not in the home I fell asleep in), I was convinced everyone had done this to ME, instead of the other way around. And in defiance of the HUP, they seem to also know just how fast they need to go to get you back before you wake up!

Absolutely. It's not a discussion anymore if anyone involved decides to stop listening.

You've experienced Exploding Head Syndrome?!

The satellites are tools. They aren't good or evil, but they can be used for either purpose. Are we assuming that everyone with a weather satellite is also using it to track troop movements? There are a lot of poor countries that are along the equator who don't think it's fair to park geostationary satellites above their countries for free. They claim the GSO is a natural resource rather than a region of space, and as such they should be allowed to claim the part over their airspace. Should they be compensated even though many don't have space programs? What about calls for orbital solar arrays that could, in theory, send energy down to the surface? It's not hard to imagine the same system that's used to relay electricity to the grid could also be used as a weapon on anybody below. The possibilities for great benefits and great harm can be a bit paralyzing for many of the global players.

Bad choice. Even the best thinkers get perspective from their friends and family. I'm so convinced that you are misinterpreting "what they have shown [you]", that I'm urging you to hear it from people you like, people you trust, people you might listen to. I know you're not afraid to do this, so I don't understand why you won't.

I don't think anyone who doesn't know mainstream science should get to criticize it, in this way. Meglicki holds PhDs in physics and electrical engineering, he already knows mainstream science, he knows when consensus makes sense, and when it's hampering progress. I think it's disingenuous to use his argument as a blanket statement that consensus is always bad. I doubt seriously that Meglicki would stick by his statement if it was used as an argument to support the ideas in many of our speculative threads. He certainly wouldn't approved of empty, unsupported, hand-waving insistence that an idea is viable and right, the concept that seems to have spawned this latest unspecific attack thread on mainstream science.

Just a thought, but perhaps you could get a friend or family member to read this thread and give you their opinion? I think even someone who favors your perspective will tell you you're misinterpreting the criticism here. Everyone else is focusing on your idea, and you're attacking individuals. And they really aren't shooting your idea down, they're begging you to explain it further, because it's not well supported right now. Ask somebody you trust to read this thread from the beginning. Please.

At least you're capturing this much. The system I saw in Germany had 5 barrels, and the 5th one rarely got any water. But that was more than enough to keep the back yard vegetable & herb gardens going, along with some potted flowers. They're either getting a lot more rainfall, or have a much bigger roof.

I hate that most communities in the US classify rainwater as grey. I realize you can't drink it, but I think it has greater utility than using grey water from showers and other non-toilet drains (which I also think should be recycled on my property). My community makes it illegal to retain grey water of any kind. Apparently, our water authority has determined that trapping water decreases revenue they might have made from selling it to us. Honestly, after seeing the systems in Germany, I think just letting rain come off your roof at the corners is very inefficient. We have lots of rainfall now, but it was only a few years ago that we were in drought conditions. My garden would have loved a catch barrel or two. During that time, I used to put a five gallon bucket in the shower with me to catch the excess, and then use that water to flush the toilet the next time I used it. I mentioned the system because cito said the grass near the house was greener than on the rest of the property, and that made me think he had gutters and downspouts, but no catch barrels.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're right. Focus on Gore as a founder, pretend his is the most important voice, and pretend we haven't improved our understanding at all since his time. Just like creationists do with Darwin. Biologists don't bring up Darwin when talking about modern evolution, creationists do. Religious or corporate, agendas are still agendas.

But if this water is caught up in barrels, you can redirect it anywhere it's needed on the property. In the US, most houses have at least four downspouts that just dump excess water from the roof onto the ground at the corners of the house. However, I've seen systems in Germany where all the gutters flow into a single downspout, and that leads to a series of catch-barrels, so when one fills up, it overflows into the next. Is this what you have, or is it more like the multiple downspouts we have in the US?

! Moderator Note Replies are required to be civil. This is not an option. Further, this is a discussion forum. You don't have the right to decide who can participate, only who you choose to respond to. And please choose NOT to respond to this modnote. Report it if you disagree with it, but don't discuss it off-topic here.

We see this so much, this enthusiasm and desire for knowledge, without the basic science education to form a good foundation. I've always used building analogies for this, but maybe it's more like George R. R. Martin's maesters in Game of Thrones. The maesters forge a physical chain, link by link, once they have mastered the knowledge of that discipline. The bits of knowledge, the links, have value in themselves, but the real value is in the chain they make when you put them together. In a way, when people cherry-pick the bits that make sense to them, and ignore the rest of the knowledge, they're placing more value on the links than on the chain they could make. They aren't giving themselves a chance for deeper understanding because they're trying to connect the links they have with bailing wire and string, instead of using the links in the mainstream way that we know forges a stronger chain. As with most analogies, I'm sure this breaks down, but I wanted to mention it because I hate seeing such a love of science knowledge go unappreciated because it lacks formal training. And we see this so often here.

Do you have any kind of rainwater retention system now, such as gutters at the edge of your roof leading to downspouts emptying into barrels? If you don't, that might be a much more sustainable first step.

! Moderator Note It's warranted now. I've had several reported posts about your hand-wavy assertions backed up by nothing but hot air and fallacies. That stops now. Please cite your sources EVERY TIME you make an assertion. And yes, that's a special consequence for ignoring repeated warnings. I'm sure you'll correct your behavior quickly in the interest of productive discussion.

! Moderator Note Please do, whenever making an assertion. Thank you.

No. Both sentences are true. Grass blades and runners grow at an accelerated rate when you shear them. Yes, sun, water, and minerals help the plant grow overall, but you change the way the plant uses its resources when you shear it. I did look at the original, but no other members should be required to. Excerpts, relevant to the part we're discussing, would be the best approach. You don't need to paste the whole thing all at once. Are you simply saying that the sun gives us our energy, and therefore drives evolution? That without it, evolution fails? Isn't this like saying the Big Bang Theory is driven by air because all the physicists working on it need air to breathe? It may be true but it misses the whole point. Here's a falsification of your idea. If the sun were to stop working, we'd have a few weeks before the Earth got too cold to support life. But in that few weeks, there would be species that could mate and have offspring, passing along their genes as evolution always does, minus the sun. So yes, we all require the working sun for ANYTHING to happen here, but the process of evolution can continue without it, until there are no more organisms to mate. Bacteria could continue in a limited fashion, and there might be even more life that could evolve just using the cooling core for as long as it lasts.

I really dislike your discussion style. You provide nothing with any meat on it, just tap-dancing and handwaving, pretending your opinions are facts, and making all kinds of assertions with virtually nothing to back yourself up but arguments from incredulity. You mock others when you fail, and you try to shift the burden of proof away from your shaky claims. You have "suspicions" but you don't dig to find out anything concrete. You cite an obviously biased "Global Warming Policy Foundation" that refuses to list who its contributors are. They use dodgy graphs and shady practices in their efforts to argue against AGW. In short, you discuss AGW like an oil exec who is paid to mislead.

! Moderator Note No. This is a discussion forum. If you wish to defend any position, talk in the open, please. If you have non-commercial knowledge to share, please share with everyone.

That's the trouble with words like "wild" and "natural". As soon as humans start cultivating them, or transporting them for trade, they aren't "wild" watermelons. Robittybob1 was talking about humans not being able to disperse digested watermelon seeds.

Does that support his assertion or yours? And it IS a garibaldi, with lots of currants. We have Jammie Dodgers too, but only for those who don't get the floor wet.

! Moderator Note This is a Climate Science thread, and is severely lacking in supportive evidence compared to the assertions being thrown around. More rigor, please, all involved. No more guessy posts, let's support those claims! As usual, talk about the topic, not about this modnote. Report it if you have issues with it.