Phi for All

First, grass DOES grow from shearing. It grows differently than if you don't shear it. Shearing makes the plant use more resources to restore its ability to use light. Blades and runners will grow faster than roots if you shear them. Second, while natural selection isn't the only driver affecting evolution, it's the main driver. It's also part of evolution most people grasp intuitively, that traits which make an individual creature successful enough to breed are passed along to offspring. How can you view this mechanism the same way you do cutting grass? Third, I'm here, at SFN, a science discussion site. I'd rather stay here to discuss this. I don't want to go to your homepage, and when you agreed to join here, you agreed to give me enough information to discuss your idea without going anywhere else (except to trusted sources for verification). Please tell me what the "true force promoting evolution" is, and please support your assertions with evidence. If your idea has any merit, we'll deal with the "source" separately.

Perhaps humans aren't the main disseminators of wild watermelon seeds.

This is option b). I choose this also, along with option d). You can't do a) EVER in this context. You must be skeptical until claims like this have support you can test against reality. Option c) is unproductive, ill-mannered, and not representative of the rest of rational science. It also punishes me by breaking my nicest cup. I would argue that he (or anyone) needs to support his assertions (as soon as the rest of you all show up), and only those who have evidence get a biscuit.

Define invisible, almost invisible, and how this differs from a normal hair on your leg. Are there any other relevant characteristics, such as length or thickness?

I think this is a case where a good science background would have helped. You've identified color as an important marker in pattern recognition, which is something humans do extremely well. However, color alone is insufficient to do the things you claim, such as identifying bacteria. But that's OK, because we don't want a single marker in science, that would be dangerous if we trusted it too much. It's better to identify things using multiple markers and tests, it gives us more detailed data than any single marker could. I love that you're observing the natural world around you, and I think you need more structured education in science. You have a lot of little basic mistakes to clear up that are keeping you from understanding your idea (not theory; theory is the best you can get in science, and we only call them "theory" when mainstream scientists can't refute them). At this point, what you don't know that you don't know is holding you back. Also, in discussions here, it's best if you don't go back and edit posts after people have responded to them. Explain it better in the next post, or use the quote function to answer a specific question in more detail. It looks weird when people mention things you later delete. This is a big problem, no? You're claiming your technique can differentiate between members of a species from differing environments, but you have to have the leopard from Senegal in the same picture with the leopard from Mozambique. How often is that practical?

You've broadened the definition of color to include... everything, even things normally considered lacking in color (mostly because they lack the pigmentation we normally associate with color), and you're assigning importance to that. I'm unclear on your name for this idea as well. It seems to be rigor-free, and that's never good in science.

"You'll love our views as much as our point-of-view! Be better, be above, be apart... of Reaganopolis."

I had to stop reading here. Natural selection is evident EVERY DAY, we observe it constantly, even creationists allow that natural selection is fact, so I don't know why you question it here. Also, it's a mistake to think evolution produces more complex organisms. Many organisms were much more complex, and have been simplified over time, such as deep cave dwellers that lose their eyes to non-use. Honestly, evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution is one of the most supported theories we've ever had. Because of some of the fundamental flaws in your understanding of it, I think you should study it further before attempting to re-write it.

I can forgive someone for being ignorant, but once that ignorance is pointed out, why should I forgive them for perpetuating ignorance, for not doing something about it? Even Jesus expected ignorant people to improve, otherwise Christianity would have little to do. Sometimes anger can show another person that they've done something wrong. I don't believe people are stupid, but I believe people do and think stupid things, and I believe they should never stop learning to correct this behavior.

There is ALWAYS something you've forgotten to take into consideration. Usually friction. How feasible would it be to build a prototype of your idea? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess it involves magnets.

It all has a "King of the Mountain" feel to it, scrambling to be on top of lesser folks. I think technology like this would increase feelings of inequality. Perhaps it's just sour grapes because I could probably never afford to live in cloud city (it would have to have a pretty hefty price tag, I'm assuming), but I keep flashing on the image of the upper classes emptying their chamber pots out the windows onto the lower classes.

I'm very sorry, but none of this is science. You're making a lot of assertive statements you can't back up with evidence. It's nothing more than guessing if you don't have evidence. Can you think of a way to test your idea? If your idea is right, will it let you make predictions about it? It's not physics at all, but it's also not in the Trash Can. It's in Speculations, where all non-mainstream ideas are discussed. We have students here who need correct, supported, mainstream science answers in the mainstream sections. You're in the right place since you're trying to re-write science.

Please forgive me. Plasma beings.

Oh, I think that's exactly what they meant. But I think it's more of a way to curtail the greed of other countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit I think these countries are worried about the big guys taking up all the best territory, in outer space directly above them. Iirc, they wanted the GSO declared a natural resource rather than a region of space, to get around the treaties. Because you're blocking my solar panels with your sky castle. Because you can't adequately guarantee something isn't going to fall off your property onto mine. Because seeing "the underside of the city" is a bad thing, right?

Great attitude! Too many people think criticism means they aren't being appreciated.

You should also make sure both of you use the same definition of "verify". And watch out for sentences containing the words "proof" and "aliens".

Too true. And that would actually be pretty fun if it worked. Human rockets. You only need them to work for half a minute anyway. I see the jetpack as a crude propulsion device, most efficient at gross linear motion within the atmosphere. If fuel weren't a problem, it could be a convenient alternative to using a much bigger device (like a helicopter) for certain situations. If I have a small delivery, I can use my motorcycle rather than firing up my 18-wheeler truck. If I dropped something overboard, I can use SCUBA equipment rather than getting the submarine ready. But in the air, we have drones for quicky missions like that. No need to risk a life for 30 seconds of operation.

The subject of outer space above a specific country is pretty touchy. The Outer Space Treaty says no country owns outer space, but some of the equatorial countries are still arguing that at least part of the GSO is theirs by right of geographical location, and they should have a right to request that nobody parks anything above them. Colombia is the most vocal in this group currently, and AFAIK still maintains that "their" outer space will be treated the same as their airspace.

This sounds a lot like you haven't studied mainstream science, but are very interested in its potential, and have decided to cherry-pick the bits that make sense to you and call it something entirely new, like "integrated extensiveness". Of course, since you're making the terminology up, nobody else understands it, so you add the bit where only a "truly superior mind" will get it. Your idea seems "logical" to you because it makes sense to you. But there is a great deal you don't know you don't know. You claim to have proof, but lack even supportive evidence. I know you've worked on this for years, but you really should have spent that time learning what we know. It would help you a great deal. You're mistaking precision for narrow-mindedness, perhaps.

The Harrier used its fixed wing in all the instances it was using its engines to travel distances. AFAIK, VTOL is for small maneuvers. Or maybe its utility is in simple maneuvers, rather than small. Would it cost less to use a jetpack like a JATO rocket to shoot a skydiver straight up instead of jumping from a plane?

If education is fundamentally flawed, it's in that it often leads those who are daunted by all there is to learn to take shortcuts. The system doesn't adequately explain how our knowledge combines with our capacity for reason to create a trustworthy method of explaining various phenomena, and thus we end up with students who ignore what we do know in favor of simply denying it. Why does it seem simpler to overthrow mainstream science than study it? Why does a small, questionable anomaly imply we're all wrong and have been poorly taught?

Context is important here. If I'm discussing chemistry and I use the word organic, it has a different use than when I see organic on my food's packaging. I haven't seen that label yet, but there are efforts to define some areas of overlap between biochemistry and organic chemistry as bioorganic. It seems to imply that the food was grown using chemical methods that help us study their impact on biological processes. I'm not sure what those might be. It could be marketing hype when used on food labels. It sounds like a new buzzword for something they were probably already doing, but can now make it sound better and smarter.

Is there any other transportation that utilizes a jet engine for maneuvering and thrust without a fixed-wing? The military is backing helicopter tech, like drones. There are easier ways to put a single human up in the air. I think flying like this would be incredibly difficult to learn as well. Like astronaut training on steroids.

Some people start with a definition of nature that emphasizes the "natural" aspect. I think this is a mistake, since we've invented that concept to exclude ourselves purposely. Natural (untouched by humans) is not what nature intended if humans are part of nature. With that said, some still seem to harbor the idea of this ideal Earth where all the other animals live in harmony, free from the pressures of evolution's dalliance with high intelligence. It seems the smarter an animal is, the more it learns to adapt to its environment, the more it learns to utilize the resources available to it, the less "natural" it must be. I think we need to acknowledge our interdependence with other life, and rather than setting ourselves apart, I think we need to figure out how we best fit in to our environments, for the most benefit to the most living things. We can't do that if we consider ourselves separate from nature. I look at it this way. Eventually, when our sun goes red giant, it can burn up an Earth full of natural animals ignorant of their plight, or it can burn up an Earth where one highly intelligent species left while they could, taking everything they could, and at least tried to spread as much of Earth's biodiversity to other planets as possible.

Not much of a conversation if you're going to answer your own questions.