Phi for All

As we explained to you last year when you made this request, your posts aren't covered under the GDPR. We've removed personal information before for other members, so we have no problems complying with requests like that even without the GDPR. Your explanation was that it bothers you that your posts are "still up and running", but that's the nature of discussion forums. They remain to teach those who read them in the future, and removing your part in those discussions makes them incomprehensible. We want to help, but other members were involved in those discussions too, and it would be unfair to waste everyone's efforts.

You're welcome! Perhaps we have different definitions of "very comprehensive", but I wouldn't describe an article that way if it didn't address my concerns over poor yields when using their product. Are you looking to add other voices to your complaint about their product before contacting them directly?

"Looks comprehensive" is an admission that you didn't read it, which seems odd if you really want an answer. Should we assume you haven't contacted Promega about this problem with their product?

Has it really? Or have we instead seen a shifting of focus as those requirements change? Is it a reduction in mental agility to use a computer or calculator if that technology gives you the time and ability to figure out much more complex problems? I too lament the shift from reading written words to watching videos of people saying those words. Right now, someone still has to write those words in the first place, but AI shows us that reading is losing some of its value when you may be wasting your time reading some bot-cobbled rhetoric. But I also think this is a sentiment every generation has, that they're losing essential skills because our inventions make hard things easier, and the reality is that we just use the extra time we save to focus on new hard things to figure out.

As I understand it, a pope can only make infallible statements about church doctrine while holding office. It's not like everything they say is without error once they become pope.

And if that happens, hopefully you'll understand that it was because your concepts were shown to be wrong because they disagree with what we observe, and not because we're trying to preserve the memory of Einstein.

Your OP was full of bad assumptions. Most of the other questions were answered NO (you mentioned an unbendable ruler that doesn't bend to prove curvature doesn't exist - truly bizarre). If your ideas are based on what you've shown so far, you aren't going to be able to explain this in a way others can agree on scientifically. You have a LOT of misunderstandings and gaps in your knowledge. I wish you would ask more questions in good faith.

Why do so many people waste so much time asking this rather than showing it has any merit? Does your model allow you to calculate how high a stable orbit around the Earth needs to be?

What do you mean by this? The curvature is altered not by needs but by mass/energy.

That's not the way science discussion works here. Why would anyone send you PMs on a board dedicated to open conversation? Why would we trust your "logical way to explain gravity" when your opening post has absolutely nothing rational about it? If you truly had a reasoned way to explain gravity that actually worked, even an Einstein fanatic would have to admit it. If you could explain your concept in a way that stays true to what we already know and doesn't make some leap over gaps in your knowledge, we could analyze it and see if there are any flaws. If there are none, we can keep moving forward. If there are flaws, you need to address them before proceeding. If you want to discuss your concept, do it. Have the courage of your convictions and stop making it about "Einstein fanatics". They exist because the science serves us so well, and within its applicability, Relativity has solved many problems. Can your concept do the same? Can you use your "logical way to explain gravity" to calculate the height of a geostationary orbit above the Earth? Please show us.

! Moderator Note This section is for Philosophy, and by that we don't mean "Preach your personal beliefs as fact". Soapboxing is against our rules, since we're a discussion forum, and demanding that your beliefs are Truth means a conversation about them keeps meeting the wall of your adamancy. If you open another thread here, please keep in mind that it's not your blog and preaching isn't allowed, so if you can please present only arguments you can support with reason and evidence. This thread is closed.

Said the Big Bad Wolf.

Except I can dip my cup into the ocean and have lots of water molecules. Can I borrow a cup of spacetime from you? Fluid has a specific meaning in physics, whereas fabric isn't used at all in physics, except in pop-sci articles. The way you're using "fabric" is more akin to "underlying structure", or "makeup" or "basic framework". But those are definitely physical things, so if you have an example of the geometry of spacetime actually being something I can hold (or borrow a cup of), I'd like to hear about it.

Sorry, but "avoid" can only be applied to future events, not past or present. Something inevitable WILL happen, but hasn't yet. You can't prevent something that's already happened, because you can't use the word "prevent" with regard to the past. To be clear, when you say "fabric", are you referencing the 2-dimensional "rubber sheet" analogy for spacetime?

I would argue that our economic basis should never be 100% private, public, or state-owned. A healthy mix seems to work best, but capitalism is the weed in the garden. If you don't keep it heavily regulated, it slowly takes over everything. I think you're wrong here. In my experience, most public works start out just great, but because much of their apparatus is governed by representatives of various political parties and ideological persuasions, they eventually fall prey to those who want to tap into public funding for private interests. You say "but they don't" like it's baked into the system, but I think it's the loopholes that allow corruption to start that's baked in. I think what's needed in cases like this are common sense, state-mandated regulations that can't be changed by party whim. And I think you're misguided about the incentives. Making and spending your own money doesn't have to disappear just because the schools and roads and utilities and libraries and postal service and ports are owned and managed by the public or state. Once again, you're arguing against 100% Communism or Socialism, and that hasn't been suggested here, not even once.

You can't fiddle with one side of the equation only. If private schools can identify and cut waste, so can public ones. And they'll always be cheaper in the long run because they don't have to charge extra for profit.

I think you're mistaken in thinking that turning education into a business is "breaking all the rules", because the rule you're breaking is fairly inviolate. For-profit businesses ALL start with the phrase, "We will make a profit by doing X". Taking the publicly-funded approach, we start with the phrase, "We will teach children what they need to succeed". Nothing is EVER going to change the fact that private schools MUST charge more for the same education because of their need for profit.

No, it's about this site requiring mainstream explanations about science. If you had scientific support for your sentient universe concept, you could present it here to support your statements. You get locked down because you keep making the claims but can't come up with a decent explanation without using magic or woo. We comprehend just fine, thanks. If you don't understand something, you should ask other people who do. That's how science works. ' Making up things you can't support isn't science. Keep it out of here.

You're the person who made a claim about the universe in a thread about whether FTL travel is possible. It's in Speculations, but it's still a science subject. If you aren't able or willing to support your statements, please don't make them in the first place.

! Moderator Note Thread closed.

Looking at overall funding doesn't help you see how the budgets are being spent. Much of the education dollars misspent in the US happen at the district level, where "business" people set up deals with private industry for things like foodservice and technology and more administrative overhead. Since I've been alive, education spending has increased by more than 350%, yet more than half the funds don't actually make it to the classrooms and the results of that spending are dubious at best. Ah, so you're judging what students need to learn based on your version of honesty? OK, please don't use this type of argument. It's just dumb, and insulting, and makes me think the rest of what you're saying is equally weak. Lack of focus on whose part? Are you judging the students this way? These are children, so any focus should probably come from professional people trained to engage focus. I'd prefer to see a system that spent what was needed for each child to learn what they need to do what they're good at that also makes them happy. It may not take much for some, and it may take a LOT for others. Your system would ignore those who cost too much, but might have saved the world one day if they'd been given what they needed. A fundamental understanding of how to disseminate the accumulated knowledge humans have amassed in their various civilizations. Knowledge shouldn't be a commodity, especially not for our children.

The universe brought us into existence? Do you have a link that explains how this was established?

Where this is true, it's usually easy to see the influence of capitalist politics on the funding of public institutions. Defund the system, cap teacher pay, make the whole system look bad and then point to how the state sector is by no means flourishing, which makes the argument of privatization look more appealing, when all it can really do is cost more to teach the same things. Teacher compensation shouldn't be assessed on a bottom-line basis. They're protesting now because we've been trying to keep their pay low for decades as part of a more business-like, bottom-line strategy. You're arguing that they should embrace the very tactics that keep some of them working two jobs. I don't want the education of my country's children to be treated as a financial arrangement, or an investment in a product, or as a means to make them fit into the jobs market. It seems pretty clear that diversity and adaptability help all life forms on this planet. Our educational system should reflect that, rather than trying to develop identical little human widgets to make training them easier and more profitable.

I think you're taking an educational process that flourishes in a non-profit model, and you're forcing it to perform as if it were a private, for profit business. Breaking everything down to a bottom-line cost per pupil means more profit without guaranteeing better teaching outcomes. Some things don't work well as privately owned entities. Education shouldn't be decided by stockholders who care more about money. I also think medicine for profit is a big mistake. Healthcare and profits are very often at odds with each other. Privatizing education is a big mistake, imo.

In the US, we don't have Free Schools. Public schooling is paid for through taxes, and private schools charge tuition. I wish we were like the French in this regard, and required private schools to teach to the national standard. The wealthy and the less than wealthy all go to the same schools, which lessens the disparity among them socially. But that money is NOT theirs. It represents taxes they paid to provide education for the PUBLIC, not just for their children. That's the way public funding works. It belongs to the People, not individual persons. To remove funding from the public for personal use should be a crime. Everyone should be considered the same as far as the knowledge taught in public education is concerned, but we can use many tools to reach individuals in the way that's best for them. That's one way to combat the stupid decisions many parents inflict on their children. It doesn't really matter if I'm not great at maths; my school should be trying to help me understand them to the best of my abilities (because I'm going to need to add up all the money I make succeeding with my fantastic Grammar). I definitely agree that over-standardization can stifle talent. Education needs to evolve along with the population. I still disagree with your product/factory analogy, so claiming "nothing will change that" seems to mean you and I won't be able to discuss that part. Sorry to hear that. Disagreement about allocation of resources is to be expected in any system. I'm not sure I understand your argument about what the average child is worth to public schooling in the UK. Are you saying private schools are more expensive, or less? Actually, I think it's been disastrous in the US to educate people the way we do, and then let them have and raise small children based on such an education. Parents often have very few points of knowledgeable contact until the children enter school around 4-5 years old, relying on their own parents and relatives who were also poorly educated to help this new little person navigate through their formative years. I think (and fervently hope) teachers know more than most parents. I think most parents are too close to the situation and usually have unresolved issues they inflict on their kids. And to add on top of that a highly capitalistic approach to education that takes focus off learning in favor of profit? Sorry, historically bad for all.