Jump to content

Phi for All

Moderators
  • Posts

    23501
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    167

Everything posted by Phi for All

  1. But using just "spending" as the yardstick, total amounts spent don't reflect good spending or bad spending, just "spending". I'm saying I don't think it's accurate as an argument against stupid government responses to problems. I think "they need to control their spending" is not the same as "they need to be wiser about how they spend taxpayer dollars". Perhaps I've just seen the total amount spent figures used too many times to imply that all the money spent by a party is bad. Pundits love tossing those figures around.
  2. I've never appreciated the "they cannot control their spending" argument. "Spending" covers smart appropriations as well as stupid ones. It's usually a partisan argument used to chastise one party for spending anything, while actually being an argument against spending money on things the other party doesn't like. Better to assess each bill by its merits, which is tough because there are usually a lot of riders attached to each bill. I think that's where most of our stupidest responses happen, when we give in to stupidity in order to get some sanity passed.
  3. Different tie perspective, Obama standing: It doesn't seem too long now. I think, as others mentioned, when seated and leaning forward, it's going to look longer. Unless the president is a master at tying a tie, I'm guessing he's got someone to make them look just right. I NEVER get the knots so perfect that it makes that awesome dimple right in the center. Mine always seem to be off.
  4. ! Moderator Note Knock off the personal comments. Restrict your comments to the ideas proposed, or don't participate. You know the rules.
  5. We know just prior to the beginning of the event, the universe's energy was in an incredibly hot, dense state. All of it in a tiny universe, just prior to the Big Bang expansion. All the energy we have now was there, so I'm not sure why you're asking how it happened without any energy. It doesn't seem fair that these theoretical physicists have to learn so much (the box), and you only have to learn the one word "boneheaded" (no box). And then you get THAT wrong.
  6. Is there a phenomenon that's the opposite of deja vu? The feeling that you've never done what you just did?
  7. What you have is a guess. What you need is an hypothesis, and some evidence to support it. If you can continue to support it while defending against it being refuted, eventually you might have a theory. Evidence is what you need. Mainstream scientific explanations have mountains of corroborating evidence, so you need to show how your idea is better than what thousands of scientists have been able to come up with over the last several centuries. So far, your guess isn't capable of being falsified. You're basing much on assumptions, like consciousness living on after death, that we'll live many lives, that there will be an end to the universe. All guesses, nothing that can be tested.
  8. How do you stay near the vicinity of people firing weapons and NOT be in harm's way? What kind of training keeps you safe from stray bullets while filming? By the way, you're giving high-tech equipment to people who live on the street, among a criminal element. You just put them in harm's way when the cops aren't around as well as when they are. You're going to need more homeless training, to defend themselves when people try to steal their camera phones. The best part about this idea is, after all that training, the homeless person could probably get a better job than filming police shootouts.
  9. Why are we putting civilians in harm's way filming armed incidents? Is it because they're just homeless people? This really seems like a kneejerk idea. The kind of legislation that mollifies some, profits others, and does nothing to help the problem.
  10. Why would you want to do that to your heart?
  11. It doesn't seem that practical by itself, but if we were to develop the techniques for capturing man-made space debris, to keep our satellites safer, and the vehicles(?) were already deployed, it might be a nice way to help fund the expeditions. And, as Greg H points out, if you figure out how to use what you capture without bringing it back down to the planet, you could continue to reduce costs.
  12. ! Moderator Note David Levy, you've been given 12 pages to make your case, and it's clear you aren't able to overcome preconceptions that are blocking you from understanding the rest of the members in this conversation. I'm seeing the same arguments being refuted over and over, and you're repeating things you were corrected on pages ago. I'm going to close this because you haven't supported your arguments per the Speculations rules, and it seems like you never were interested in discussing this idea so much as you were preaching about it. Don't bring this subject up again unless you find more support.
  13. Emotional attachments to belief seem to be a bad thing. Not emotions in general, just emotions when they form the foundation of a belief. Like believing something because you're afraid not to, or believing all people from country X are evil because one of them killed your beloved grandfather in the war. The title question seems to acknowledge that "reason" is necessary for a belief to be considered good.
  14. Pawn it all, save the money. Only buy back the things you can't live without. Also, every time you see something you want that you can't afford, pretend you used to have one, but you gave it away because it was cursed.
  15. ! Moderator Note Please, let's use the definition of "invasive" that applies to the thread as Acme has outlined. If another thread is needed, please start it fresh, I hate splitting discussions. If you object, report this post and let me know your reasons. Son't talk about it here.
  16. It makes no difference. If the real problem is this feeling of defeat, a medical professional can help you with that as well. That's why I said, do this one thing. It's a big problem with a simple solution. Simple, but maybe not easy. But it's just the one thing, make an appointment with a doctor.
  17. I think the perfect solution is to overcome your shyness just long enough to meet the medical professional who is going to help you solve this problem. As JohnCuthber said, a proper examination is necessary for a proper diagnosis. So, you have one thing to do. One life-affirming, non-bizarre, perfectly normal thing that's done every day.
  18. I think I mentioned the victory pose in this thread, didn't I? I saw it on a TED presentation, and I think it would fit in really well with your toe touches. As you come back upright, throw your arms up in the air in the victory V, and listen to the crowd roaring your name, applauding you and your accomplishments wildly. This releases a fantastic chemical cocktail that's an instant pick me up. Makes you feel like doing a few more toe touches, or perhaps a victory lap around the house.
  19. Whenever a heavy investment is made in one area, it almost always benefits others as well. War might make a sniper's scope necessary, but a modified version of that can help an engineer be more accurate too. But I think a much smarter investment is space. NASA, ESA, and others come up with some of the greatest stuff for working in space, and much of it benefits many different industries on-planet as well. It's a smarter across-the-board investment than war, imo, since efficiency improves in industry when you're not killing people.
  20. This is one of those phrases that sounds good, but is actually part of the problem. The possibilities are literally endless, so it seems smarter to look for what's probable, rather than possible.
  21. ! Moderator Note We're on page two now, with many assertions left unsupported, despite repeated calls for evidence. It's officially time to stop promising and start producing. Anyone can claim something is true, but in science we must show it. Don't respond to this modnote in thread. If you have a problem with it, use the Report Post function.
  22. Please tell Nightdancer (your dad, maybe?), that there were a few replies to his OP that were unacceptable, and I hope the moderators have pointed that out to everyone's satisfaction. Apologies for those. But he was also given some excellent information refuting some of his foundational premises. He told us, in his first sentence, that he has no formal education in these matters. It shouldn't be a surprise that he might get some things wrong. It's better that he knows these things, right? No ridicule was intended. Criticism of an idea in science is a necessary step in the process. Sharing ideas with others helps us figure out where we're wrong, and where we might be right, so we don't spend 30 years on something that turns out to be trivially false.
  23. That seems to give an awful amount of definitive power to people who may be deluded. Why are we letting them define what "miracle" means? I look at it this way. Most so-called miracles aren't repeatable, so probability heavily favors a natural source mis-attributed to a supernatural one. I've never found anything that couldn't be explained naturally, and even if I couldn't and had to admit, "I just don't know", there's no rational reason I need to invoke a deity to explain it. In fact, historically when we've used god(s) to explain a gap in our knowledge, those gaps invariably continue to narrow until a rational reason pushes the deities out and the gap is bridged. It's worked this way countless times. Science has never failed to provide the best explanation for phenomena it's equipped to deal with. "We don't know yet" seems like a much more reasonable stance than, "Goddidit!"
  24. Why does anyone, when discussing science, insist on 100% proof, ironclad surety, and purity from doubt? If you learn anything here, it should be that theories are our best current explanation, subject to change when new data is presented. They represent our best knowledge, but not the best it will ever be. We learn and improve theories all the time. And no, since I define faith as strong belief with nothing rational to support it, I don't think science uses faith. There are rational, scientific reasons to trust that the sun will rise tomorrow. If you know the way it works, you don't have to take it on faith. Hold on here. There ARE scientific explanations for "such miracles" as you describe. Can you name a miracle that science doesn't have an explanation for? Who are you agreeing with, that "there's no scientific explanation for such miracles"? Protip: When you're researching miracles, try to avoid the ones where some kind of religious icon shows up on something. It's pretty trivially easy to show that the Virgin Mary in water stains on a highway overpass, or Jesus' face on toast are just pattern recognition. Medical "miracles" are even easier to refute, unless you could find an instance where something that's never happened before happened, like an amputee growing a leg back. I don't follow this. You think a miracle supports theory? That's what "'falsifying' evidence against" means. Scientifically, there are no miracles. Again, science deals with the natural world, and when you start talking about magical, physics-defying, unobserveable deities doing unpredictable and unrepeatable miracles, you're talking about the supernatural. Science can only shrug its shoulders and say, "Not my problem. Come back when there's something to test against reality."
  25. This happens to you a lot, doesn't it? Is that why you were so angry right off the bat? Perhaps science discussion isn't right for you. You've posted once about science, and sixteen times about how much we all suck. A blog sounds like a better choice for you. You can turn off the replies and not worry about accusations.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.