Phi for All

! Moderator Note OK, seven pages and I don't see any supportive evidence, though it's been requested several times. This is a requirement in Speculations, since anybody can have an unsupported idea. Mainstream science has been tested using the same requirements, so if you want to offer something better, you need to support it as much as you can. Please don't re-open this topic without some supportive evidence. Thread closed.

Picking at the wound after you've gotten it seems to prevent healing. Learning how to avoid the wounds in the first place is sort of what the reputation system is for. We want to discuss science productively and meaningfully. The rest is just target practice.

You could say the rep system reinforces the rules, which have evolved to provide a civil place for science discussion. Minimal advertising, we try to avoid personal remarks while offering a critical review, and when asked we want members to provide evidence for their assertions. Many of the reputation points (I'd say most, but I don't have the data to back that up) reflect how well a member does at fostering this atmosphere, making discussions more meaningful and productive.

You may be reading, but you aren't reasoning through it. You're ignoring really good supportive evidence because it doesn't fit with what you think you know. You're simultaneously claiming that we don't know enough to do the calculations properly, and that we shouldn't look at corroborating evidence outside of Earth. You're artificially restraining me, and then claiming I'm incapable of movement. That's not how it works.

Trust you to know that using your tail to orient yourself correctly in zero-g is the simplest solution?! I don't think so. I'm going to go with the creatures who have more experience with both.

Meats aren't measured well by the glycemic index since they have no carbs, but do very well on the insulin index. I think the real culprit that prevents weight loss is insulin production. Insulin raises blood pressure, tells the cells to produce their own cholesterol, tells the kidneys to retain salt (causing you to retain water in balance), and is also a huge trigger for fat storage. I couldn't quickly find any data on the insulin index difference between grass-fed and grain-fed beef. That might be very interesting. There is also the organic beef classification, which limits the use of hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides, where grass-fed does not.

! Moderator Note Attitude affects behavior, people. Let's stay focused and civil.

Here's a study done at CSU Chico. And I don't know where you live, but an extra $100-200/month seems extremely high for grass-fed beef. I live in a good sized city and I estimate the extra cost is about $300/year.

Plane of existence? Strike that from your vocabulary, it's a fictional reference that doesn't exist in science. Another dimension? Dimension has a special meaning in science; longitude, latitude, altitude, time, these are dimensions we use to specify where something is, was, or will be. You're looking for "alternate universe" most likely, part of the multiverse hypothesis. Still, as zapatos mentions, aliens from our own universe would be much more likely to explain UFO sightings than aliens from another universe. And as swansont mentions, that they weren't aliens at all, that they were something much more mundane, is even more likely. The likeliest explanation, as a matter of fact, and that's something science is always on the lookout for.

You might as well paint them all white and make every car the same. Why should I pay for a BMW that's going to be governed by the same system as the Toyota, or the Hyundai? This seems like a rational way for the technology to proceed. Plus, it's the aggressive driver who wants to get to the job interview that gums things up for everyone. Automobile traffic is definitely a situation where slow-and-steady is better but hardly intuitive.

! Moderator Note Please, if you're going to post in mainstream physics sections, please be prepared to discuss mainstream topics. If you want to challenge what is already known, you must do so in the Speculations section.

Well, thanks for shouldering the burden. I respect that you wanted to do this right since it looked like you started it. I'd shake your hand, but... well, boogers.

I can't forge an OP and slip it in ahead of yours; that's the only reason your name is on it. I think everyone knows by now that you didn't start the thread. That's a burden you can drop right away. I can rename the thread.

You know, it's not the mention of "marks", or the elementary challenges you pose. It's starting threads asking questions you claim to already know the answers to, and then condemning certain responses during the discussion. That's what seems like preachy soapboxing. That's what diminishes the value of your "marks". It's not a good style for productive discussion. Just sayin'.

And we end up with potentially rational people accepting whatever is fed to them, which leaves them woefully short on information on which to base informed decisions, so they use emotions instead. And that works out SO well.... I know what you mean. I felt the same way when you described the difference between science and philosophy above. Philosophy is the study of what's real and true? Science is about proofs? I don't think you're listening when people talk here.

I have nothing more to offer than what others have said, but I'll quote Willie71 here because this is one of the most powerful aspects of scientific methodology. When you reach your conclusions based on the best available explanations and evidence, it's surprisingly easy to change your conclusions when knowledge improves or more evidence is uncovered. If you reach a conclusion rationally, you can reach a better one the same way. I didn't want to close the thread Ten oz started because of anyone else, I don't think that's fair. But I also don't think it's fair to others to set up conditions where reasonable evidence is ignored in favor of emotional appeal. And now it's clear to me that's what's happened here. It doesn't seem very fruitful to continue this way.

Except everyone else is backing up their arguments with more than hand-waving. Personally, while I'm not a religious follower and don't believe in divine beings, the question of whether Jesus was a real person or completely cobbled together from many histories seems to be one science could provide an explanation for. I can look at the objective evidence presented and decide based on that and skip the emotional appeal of the popularity of the religion. You could persuade me that there really was a Jesus, but you can't do it without any evidence at all, because there's a lot of evidence that there wasn't.

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=103 Why else come to a science discussion forum, if not to discuss topics using rational thinking based on the best available evidence? Ignoring evidence indicates there is nothing rational about this discussion.

It's more like no argument will change your mind on this issue. It's one thing if we can't show support for our arguments, or make bad arguments that don't persuade anybody, and it's a whole different thing if the person you're discussing whether Jesus was a real person or not with would never listen to the best possible argument you could ever have. An idea must be capable of being false in order to discuss it rationally. I don't think you're being rational, and a look at the last several pages of this thread tells me it's in a circular nosedive. Though it's been reported a few times now, I was hoping I could find out as a member (rather than staff) if the thread needed to be closed or not. I don't think anyone wants to continue if it's pointless, but I could be wrong.

It must be my fault. I'm going to assume that the shroud was mentioned as evidence earlier, so no, it's not good enough to keep bringing up arguments that have been refuted. As for the "other non NT tales", you haven't provided any. You seem to use Jesus' humble origins and his popularity as it pleases you, depending on what you're arguing for. I must conclude that, for you, no amount of supportive evidence will ever be good enough to qualify as a good argument against Jesus being a real person. Most of the members have shown extreme amounts of patience with your discussion style. In the end, if we're weighing the preponderance of evidence of both arguments, it's clear that the scales tip undeniably in favor of Jesus being just a story. Giving us the finger on your side of the scale really doesn't balance, it just makes this discussion pointless.

This argument seems to question the very worth of historical documentation with regard to Jesus, which is what most people here are trying to provide as evidence for or against his being a real person. It now seems clear, twenty-six pages of discussion later, that this type of evidence is never going to be considered. Jesus is simultaneously so powerful and so innocuous as to defy any argument.

That would make you inconsistent with our purpose. If this is why you're here, you're wasting everyone's time. This is a science discussion forum.

! Moderator Note Moving to Speculations. Please take the time to read the special rules for this section. Try to provide as much support for your arguments as you can. It's all about supportive evidence.

Not to be confused with the Golden Goose Fallacy, the Fat Goose Fallacy says you can't assume people have good intentions just because they feed you a lot.

Did you post this in the wrong thread? It doesn't seem to have any bearing on this conversation.