Phi for All

yahya515 has requested to be banned. Apparently, self-control is not enough to keep some people away from science. We wish him all the best.

! Moderator Note OK. Best of luck, thanks for participating.

Subverting democracy, like the Republican extortion regarding negotiations on the debt ceiling? Or when the Republicans vote down their own good legislation just because the Democrats also think it's good? Or when a middle class conservative is coerced into voting for higher taxes on himself so the wealthy can pay less? Or when the Republicans decide that who you sleep with is their business? Or when the Republicans decide you're not as important as your unborn baby? I've never liked that so many middle class conservatives end up thinking the Republican party represents them (or at least they vote that way), when it clearly does NOT. This is more anecdotal than anything, but I know quite a few folks who vote that way because their bosses let them know that if taxes are raised on them, there will be some layoffs, despite the fact that businesses pay far less taxes today than they did during the 50s so many conservatives are fond of. How is that democracy? So yes, when everyone else in the whole world wonders why the richest nation doesn't have national healthcare, and the president makes a move to correct that, but is met with the stupidest, most inane objections and is blocked at every turn by lies and deceit and corporate agendas, I call that a "hurdle". And considering the fiasco even many conservative would agree was inflicted by the Bush administration on this country, and the continued efforts of the Tea Party to send us back to the social and economic Dark Ages, I would call any restriction of their influence "limiting damage".

That a rational argument can overcome an emotional stance. I believe the words just have to exist, that people can't embrace ignorance over reason if reason is presented properly. It's a dream I have.... Oh, and I believe in the healing power of bacon.

! Moderator Note You didn't ask for permission to re-open this topic. You haven't so far introduced anything new that would make this discussion productive. And now we're getting back to the exact same arguments that were unsupported last time. We need to see some substance here or I'll have to shut this down as well.

! Moderator Note Yes, thanks very much!

And you'll get your change in tuppence, so you don't have to feed the birds with your cookies.

I'm not trying to answer for Zet, but crackpots often use them to annoy so they can steer arguments off course, and later claim that the only flaws people could find with their ideas were in the fonts they used. They also sometimes think it demonstrates their ability to think outside the box. I don't think they realize that, in a discussion of a scientific topic, it's a lot like insisting on standing on the table to address everyone else seated around it.

Absolutely. You keep posting iterations that are no more clear than the last one. Your obsession with bizarre formatting detracts from productive understanding. And as mentioned previously, the fact that you're challenging some well-known principles with arguments based on flawed assumptions makes it difficult to spend the time it will take to go through your explanation looking for the mistake that MUST be there.

Probably because you started out calling only for homeless people, then switched to professional camera crews, and when that was shown to be hideously expensive you then went back to defending the idea of homeless people behind the cameras. Now it seems to be more hobby/thrillseeker-adjacent. This is offensive as well. It's like someone criticizing the war gets asked why they hate our soldiers. Total, total strawman of the general argument.

See, it's statements like this that make me think you're extrapolating String Theory's lack of experimental success to science in general. Others have noticed as well, and are asking you to do more than make hand-wavy assertions, perhaps provide some supportive evidence for your anti-mainstream stance. Oh please, not that tired old piece-of-crap argument about science as a religion! I think you missed the part where I never claimed to be a String Theory proponent. It's a really elegant theory, imo, but I don't have the math skills to confirm it personally. So I rely on those who do speak math, and they all tell me that it's the best part of this theory. But ultimately, right now we can't test the rest of it, and that alone makes the theory suspect on a foundational level. String Theory is completely valid as a theory, and recognizes the standard model. It's one of the closest we have now to a unified field theory. Like all theories, it's just waiting to get better. Or be overthrown by something better. Like others, I'm just trying to show that it's far too premature to call it a failure and abandon it. And it absolutely doesn't prove any of the other crap you've attached to it, especially your last line above. I'd sure like to see you support the statement that the majority opinion in science is almost always wrong. In my opinion, stances like these are suspicious in that they absolve you from a great deal of hard study and learning. Approaching science from an intuitive position is what is almost always wrong.

Well, I don't moderate threads I'm involved with as a member, so my authority is equal to yours in that regard. My post was on topic, and my comments were directed at your perspective, not you personally. So, misconceptions cleared up, hopefully. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking that your comments about String Theory aren't directed at science in general. It certainly seems that way to me.

! Moderator Note You're in the mainstream science sections. We have a Speculations section if you'd like to challenge accepted theories, but here the replies are going to reflect our best current explanations, many of which only make sense if you speak math. We make the assumption that if you're posting in Relativity, you want to discuss Relativity with people who know what they're talking about. All are trying to help, some are abrasive, most are not.

I'm guessing the influence was Groucho Marx.

If you allow for consciousness to live on after the death of the body, the fact that no one ever came back may just mean 1) there's no way to, or 2) there's no need to, or 3) there's a very good reason not to. But there's no evidence that consciousness is separate from the mind. I know the Bible talks about Heaven as a final reward, but I've never related to the idea of a place where there's no strife or worries. I've come to believe we need obstacles in order to progress.

Since you are generally negative towards mainstream science, it's not surprising you would take this perspective. Many others think String Theory shows the remarkable, self-correcting power of the scientific method. And if the theory ever finds experimental support, I think you'll find the mathematics will describe reality pretty well. Ironically, I find your perspective to be the one detached from reality. You seem to think that if science is wrong about some things, it must be wrong about everything.

! Moderator Note To make it official, you really do need to provide some supportive evidence for your ideas. Otherwise, it's just guessing, and anybody can do that anywhere (or rather, anywhere else). We've chosen to require more from our members, and the vast majority appreciate it. It's not a format everyone is comfortable with, but it does let us set a rather robust standard for discussing science, while being far less rigorous than professional peer review. We want to be productive in our discussions, and that means we follow a methodology that gives us the best shot. Certainly better than wild guesses and hand-wavy assertions with nothing to compare to reality. We ask that, if you have a problem with this modnote, you Report This Post rather than discuss it offtopic here in the thread.

I tried that, too. I found it was best to do your hair before you put the dishes in the sink.

Is it just an added bonus that your way lets you bypass all that learning? It leaves more time for guesswork and irrationality, I suppose.

Absolutely not. I can't stand it when you do. It might be different if you had any hair, but....

It is still best to collaborate with appropriate people from other fields. Their expertise needs to be applicable to the project. I think the collaborator's personalities play a big part in collaboration as well. Cooperation is as important as communication. I'm sure you could come up with a set of circumstances where none of this is true, but for the most part I think having more perspectives is better.

I could swear you've told me this before.

Perhaps I'm overly sensitive about it, but I think using a word without anything to qualify it invites too many emotional responses. Words like spending, welfare, immigration, taxes, these are buzzwords the media can use by themselves to instantly polarize the population into varying opinions. There are good and bad aspects to all of these. We need to acknowledge that. I have to say, I'm involved with projects involving some new energy saving technology the government is subsidizing, and I couldn't do this without their assistance. I've had some wealthy clients see the merits, and it doesn't bother me that they could have afforded to fund the project without the utility rebates. I'm only interested in reducing the carbon footprint of each building I deal with, and the subsidy does what a subsidy should do, it helps offset the cost difference between the newer, more efficient technology and the old, well-established technology. So if some billionaire wants a fleet of Leafs or Volts or even Tesla Roadsters, all he/she is going to do is supercharge the program, and hopefully convince some others to participate.

I use the Half-Windsor exclusively. I'm tall in the midsection, so if I use another knot, there isn't enough end left to tuck into the loop on the back. But this is what I usually get for a dimple: Asymmetrical silk dimpling! I must be all opposable thumbs!

There is the celebrity effect to consider also. The media will cover the story longer if there's a multi-millionaire involved, getting the subsidies. Hopefully, the media will also point out that the celebrity is probably more interested in owning the electric car than he is getting the subsidy. Back in the 90s, when GM tested the EV-1 in southern California, Ed Begley Jr was the celebrity driving the interest in the technology. Perhaps his involvement caused more people to be aware of the alternative.