Phi for All

Security people monitoring video feeds 24/7 demand superior quality video that shows size relationship and focus that help them determine accurately whether the subject is an intruder posing a threat or just a bunch of Mylar balloons someone left at the front door of the building. They don't stake their reputations by making actionable decisions, like whether to call the cops or not, on vague and questionable data.

! Moderator Note Not without going off-topic. You should be able to figure it out. As in past threads, you are failing at communicating your point. You seem more interested in accusations of persecution than in discussing your ideas. Can you skip the Galileo complex and clarify what you wish to discuss? And please, as you well know, response to modnotes is not only unnecessary, it's off-topic and does NOTHING to help anyone understand what you're trying to say. Let me suggest you remove the chip on your shoulder and discuss science.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please take the time to read the special rules governing this section. And remember to keep personal attacks out of all discussions here at SFN. Ideas are our focus.

All theory is under scrutiny, constantly. That's one of the things that makes it so powerful. When a theory represents the best explanation we currently have, doesn't it make sense to teach it in school? Many do take these explanations as fact, but should leave a bit of room for skepticism. Can you give me an example from one of the many that make you upset?

I understand why this way of thinking persists. It's not so different from thinking there's a magic sky fairy watching over us. But that's dangerous to me. It means that some people will not take responsibility for what they do to the planet, because there is some grand design we don't yet understand that will automagically sort everything out in the end. I think we're going to need our wits about us in the near future because we've been doing some very irresponsible things to our environment. Some people want that to change, and others want to keep doing them. A lot of the latter folks argue that God has a plan, or that it's all pointless because there's a better place for us, or that the planet is a living organism itself that gave birth to a hierarchy of offspring with humans at the top of the list. We're a species uniquely adapted to move offplanet. I can't think of any other creature that could (on its own). That doesn't make us better, just better adapted to move away from home. I think it's critical that we understand that we're not Earth's babies, that Earth is a rock that can, at present, support great biodiversity. So it's not that I just don't like any analogy or suggestion that Earth is a living organism, I think it's unhealthy, unrealistic, and ultimately harmful to our future. We need to protect Earth because it's our home, not our parent. Parents die, offspring survive to have more offspring.

Only if you're going to treat it like an opinion that reflects on yourself. You shouldn't have to though.

And one that is often taken personally, when it was never intended to be.

! Moderator Note Speculative concepts shouldn't be placed in mainstream fora. We have lots of students who rely on the Relativity section being a place for the best current explanations of Relativity. Thread moved to Philosophy.

As long as the concepts discussed are based on the natural universe, theological claims are explainable by science. This doesn't stop crackpots from continuing to defend easily falsified concepts, but I think the most common theological crackpot arguments involve some kind of supernatural explanation science isn't really interested in covering, like the existence of divine beings or places like heaven and hell.

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I do think this suggestion could accomplish the OP's goal without starting a new sub-forum. We've talked about setting up some kind of template for speculative ideas, and I think we have a boatload of stickies trying to tell folks how to approach the board with non-mainstream ideas. I'm always baffled when people insist instead of inquire when speculating. Perhaps it's the very common misconception that "proof" is required as opposed to evidence in support. If you say, "This is the way it really is" rather than "Could this be the way it really is?", you should expect your idea to be attacked with vigor, especially when you have no math to check and the logic you claim to rely on looks like Swiss cheese.

The possibility of the kinds of paradigm shifts you're talking about are dwindling as global communication within the community improves, imo. There are so many minds working on so many aspects of science that missing something major is highly unlikely. And improvements on current theory are on a completely different scale than the shift from geocentric models to heliocentric that you mention. To me, it's all about the preponderance of evidence. I'm not a professional scientist, so I rely on mainstream models to provide the best explanations. Do I worry that all those scientists working every day around the world to advance our understanding of the natural world are missing something huge, some paradigm shift that will show we've been teaching the wrong concepts this whole time? Not in the least.

Are you defining "more relaxed" as "let me propose whatever I feel like"? That's what blogs are for. In my experience, discussions about science need structure and a decent amount of rigor. "People taking an interest in science" should include a substantial amount of mainstream knowledge in order to be meaningful. If we could somehow get people to understand that most of the pushback they receive in Speculations is due to their insistent assertions that their pet theory is entirely correct right from the start, I think it would really help everyone. It's pretty typical for these posters to simultaneously admit they don't know much real science AND assert that their idea is a better explanation than the current models. Skeptical science minds are ALWAYS going to object to ideas presented this way, and they aren't going to want to continue a discussion until these mistakes are addressed. If they don't, it lends a tacit approval to methodology that lacks any sort of rigor. And I wouldn't let the rep system be the arbiter of any kind of topic's worth. All it really does is show a member's ability to discuss science within our rule system. Also, what you propose sounds like an awful lot more work for me.

! Moderator Note Moved to The Lounge, this is NOT speculative science. If clarity doesn't ensue, the thread will be moved to the Bit Bucket.

Unrealistic and unreasonable is EXACTLY how I would describe your insistence that the objects are "self-luminous", morphing, and not possibly ordinary..

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations due to the non-mainstream nature of the topic.

I worry about them even less than you.

That's hilarious. I give an example of why it's a strawman argument, and you counter with yet another strawman. They must cancel each other out, so I'll rate that as a null answer.

This is where I'd have to focus on reality. Does your belief really affect the way you live your life? Do you save all your toenail clippings so the trillions of little universes inside aren't murdered by your callousness? Or are you able to always justify your murderous ways by claiming it's always "down to scale"? Just pointing out some absurdities that don't seem to scale, certainly not accusing you of anything illegal. Personally, I think you should get rid of those boxes of toenails as fast as you can.

Done. Btw, 6. Would you define yourself as creativity? I almost put NO. You should change this noun to an adjective.

But evolution continues no matter what. Even during times of stability, small changes in genes within a population cause those populations to change. Be very careful trying to equate the challenges we face within our lifetimes to any evolutionary processes. Once you're born and then pass along your genes to an offspring, evolution doesn't care what challenges or catastrophes you as an individual face. But the Earth was still the Earth when there was no life. It just wasn't the Earth that we're able to adapt to. It was still the Earth when oxygen began to saturate our atmosphere, and a lot of the life around at the time died off. I think it's pretty premature to think the Earth has been preparing for human life. We're not nearly as stable and successful as some of the dinosaurs, and we certainly aren't as successful as many present lifeforms. We're just the only ones currently able to discuss it over the internet. I think there's a danger in this belief. I value life extremely highly, and I worry that the value is diminished if we're part of a larger living entity. As Strange pointed out, that might seem to make us parasites living off a larger creature. I already think there are too many humans who don't place enough value on the Earth as our home. For the same reason I worry that many religious people think a god will take care of our planet no matter what we do, I think there are those who would love to kiss it all off to a vast, universal entity that will sort everything in the end. To me, this is more like faith or wishful thinking rather than a rational stance that recognizes both our strengths and weaknesses as a species. OK, take your thumb and cut it off. How long will it live without the rest of you? If there were civilizations living within some of the cells in your thumb, what happens to them? I think you're just doing what humans are so good at, trying to find patterns to explain what seems difficult to grasp. I understand if you like to think of it this way, but there is absolutely nothing to support the idea, so it's a belief you arrived at without reason, or just a wishful thought that pleases you. Both are OK I guess, but they shouldn't be confused with a more trusted explanation rooted in reality.

Why do you think stability would be bad for evolution?

! Moderator Note You were asked NOT to "follow-up" on this unless you had some extraordinary evidence to offset your extraordinary claims. More videos isn't going to cut it. So no, there will be no "sticking" with this footage. You failed last time with this type of footage, and there is no reason to suspect you will be any more successful this time, especially since you continue to claim things like "self-luminosity" and unnatural morphing abilities. Provide some evidence to match your claims, we're not going to let this thread go into multiple pages this time without it.

QFT. And this shows me that it's really a strawman argument that SO many people make here. Everyone has ideas, but cranks persist in arguing for them in spite of counter evidence.

... and did NOT follow a proper protocol for dealing with those infected. I'm still reeling from the incredibly ignorant approach taken in Texas. You have one major preventative method available, avoid contact with ANY fluids from a victim, but you let your nurses work without completely covering their skin?! Unbelievable for a modern hospital, but a big part of the reason I don't think healthcare should be using a for-profit business model. It fosters cheapness that can cost lives in the long run.

Let me clarify a few things, hopefully without being too off-topic. I promise to bring them around to the OP. I needed to moderate this thread pretty heavily to begin with, and I took an approach that didn't sit well with Lance_Granger. I apologize, it happens, we don't mean to chase anyone away, but the majority of members prefer a well-regulated discussion, so we have our rules. When Lance_Granger ignored my modnotes repeatedly, I recused myself, not for impartiality but because I wanted another staff member to take over in hopes of a better match. So I'm just a member in this discussion, but we still don't want a Wild West brawl going on. We discuss science here, and that means criticism of ideas. If you're not willing to entertain the possibility you may be wrong, then all you're doing is preaching at us, or soapboxing. That's not how science works, and it's not how discussion works. This is a far cry from formal peer review, but then it's also a far cry from formal presentation of a scientific hypothesis. It's what we've got and it seems to be interesting enough to put us in the top five science discussion sites worldwide. We don't attack people here, we attack ideas, with the hopes of making the ideas stronger or showing them to be wrong. Again, a big part of the scientific method. Leave your ego at home, it has no place here, that's what everyone likes to see. We don't know you, but we know your idea, so that's what we're talking about. It's essential that we don't tie ourselves to our ideas. We've all had dumb/bad/wrong ideas, but that doesn't make US dumb/bad/wrong. It makes us human. I've tried very hard to show where your concept is weak, Lance_Granger, and needs some work. These are the parts that are trivially falsified, like your misconceptions about evolution. You can't ignore the cracks in the foundation of your idea, calling them nitpicky, and expect to build anything substantial on top of it. Experience tells me it's pointless to continue to discuss this without fixing what's wrong. I hope you can see that. Thank you so much, arc, this is good solid evidence, and I know Lance_Granger really means it when he compliments the info you've given. I'm curious to know, however, if what you've said has given him any new insights on his idea. This is really the true test of a scientific mind, the ability to look at real evidence and judge its merit with regard to an hypothesis. So I'll ask directly. Lance_Granger, do you still stick by your hypothesis 100%, or have you begun to modify it? If so, how so? This also ties back to before the Earth had any water or life on it. Are there any other living organisms that start out dead, slowly gain life, and then cycle back and forth between practically frozen/dead and abundantly living?