Phi for All

His answer was designed to provide both, at least for flares and prominences. Since sunspots also occur in the photosphere but don't move outward, I would guess your teacher is looking for the origin of these three phenomena. "Continuously" means "without pause", or "uninterrupted". The solar wind is always happening.

And focus on the part where once the bias is introduced, more evidence refuting the bias tends to make people even more certain they're right. It's a pretty vicious circle. I think the best approach is to show her some websites from children's hospitals around the country.

I think the problem is with the wording, which may have changed in translation. You used the word "occur", which means "where they happen". Ophiolite used the word "originate", meaning "where they start".

I think the "something" one finds themselves "on to" when this phrase is used is "the right path/trail". As in, you've stumbled on to something that feels like it has a lot of potential, a path that may lend us some insight. Alternately, if I say, "I'm on to you", it could mean I've figured out your unspoken motives and now understand what you're doing. It's mostly used when there is something to figure out that requires some investigation. /off-topic clarification

Citation please? Where are you getting these figures for "the potential of the fundamental forces"?

Personally, I look for how much evidence is available to support any explanation. I trust that methodology not to lead me to hasty conclusions. If you had evidence that evolution adds to a species without ever taking anything away, you could change my mind about how evolution really works. But you'd have to have a bigger mountain of evidence than I have that says otherwise.

You want me to agree that it's a scientific fact that all life is created the same way? I couldn't. So you're a Deist. There's no evidence to support what you suggest.

Part of the problem here is that you seem to have reached a conclusion about a subjective issue before you started discussing it with us. You claim that reality is the same for everyone no matter what the perspective is, and there is a very narrow definition of reality where you're right, but it seems pointless to discuss it with someone who has already made up their mind. And that's really the reason we don't like soapboxing; discussions go nowhere if all minds involved aren't open to change. Discussion fosters insight; conclusions are optional.

Define "creation", please. Are you talking about how individual humans are created, or how our species evolved, or about the first life we're all descendant from, or are you talking about something else? To which "scientific fact" do you refer?

This is preaching, btw. Not because you invoke a god or because you believe in a certain religion. Preaching/soapboxing is where you apply your opinion as an assertion, be it about religion, politics, or any other subjective assessment. Asserting that "God is the same for everyone, no matter what our perspective" is patently false. It may be your opinion, but you haven't shown that this God is the same for me as it is for you.

Fair point. I should have stipulated the perspective of the State in my comment. Churches should expect tolerance from the State regarding how they worship, but the State should be free from undue influence from the Church as well.

What?! Annihilation via nuclear or biological warfare is one of the explanations for the Fermi Paradox. That we haven't wiped ourselves out after 70 years of knowing exactly how to is a very good argument that other intelligent life exists in the universe. That we haven't yet been visited by such life forms might say something about how difficult this is and how well we're handling such knowledge. I don't understand anything about the above, other than you think "religion is an abomination". Just an observation, but it seems like you have this sort of over-arching concept you're struggling with, a patchwork hypothesis you've developed to take the place of some ideas you no longer support. Now you're trying to equate EVERYTHING with this idea of yours, but you're having trouble communicating that to others. You don't know the standard terminology, so you're stringing together words that make sense to you in a context nobody else shares. This is another reason why mainstream studies are important.

The amazing part comes from connectivity with matching devices, which you don't have. But you should be able to use iTunes to enable disk use, as Sensei mentioned, so you can at least exchange pictures and music. And don't forget that smartphones are app-driven; if you want caller ID, there's a free app for that somewhere.

Lately I've been focused on the objectives of religious groups. I see plenty of churches organizing to help the needy, or even just help their own congregations in various positive ways. I have absolutely no problem with these folks; they seem to be what's best about organized religions. Some religious groups have decided that they know what's best for everyone. They've decided that their beliefs should be applied as legislation applicable to the whole population. They're out there lobbying against gay rights, evolution taught in schools, abortion, and other issues where they feel their beliefs are superior. These groups are the very reason and spirit behind separation of church and state, imo.

So why did you buy an Apple phone? Personally, I think Apple has the best OS for computers, and the iPhones are amazing, but I'm a Windows user by necessity. I use Google Chrome as a browser, so I went with an Android phone, which is also amazing. I'm no expert at all, but it seems like crossing platforms is going to involve some added headaches.

I agree that giving away cash is easily exploited. People treat "found" money differently than earned money, and I think that would influence this type of program. What's the spirit of this new program, to circulate capital or to take care of basic needs? Any fund that comes from private sources is going to have plenty of caveats attached to it. I'm struggling to envision the Koch Brothers donating to a $6T program that gives their money away to just anybody. I'm sure they'd put provisions in where anyone who gets money from the Kochs has to use Angel Soft toilet paper.

If it can't be explained by natural laws, then by definition it's supernatural. Science deals only with natural phenomena. Miracles seem to be one-off phenomena, never repeatable or predictable. To me, this is the best indicator that there are simpler, natural explanations that don't involve anything we don't already understand. IOW, if we knew every influence that shaped its making and could recreate it, we could probably make Jesus' face appear on a piece of toast over and over again. Miracle not needed.

Whoa, give us some credit here. We're 70 years into the nuclear age. After discovering the fissionable capabilities of uranium, we've managed to avoid "destroying ourselves" with a weapon that's several orders of magnitude more destructive than anything we had previously. It's not any single governing entity that keeps scientific advancement from destroying us. I'd have to chalk that one up to an general mutual distaste for mass murder. You've GOT to stop doing this. Step away from the salad tongs! Words are not meant to be tossed around this way. They lose their meaning easily if you've just stitched them together without considering that nobody else knows what you mean by "simplified opposites" or that "'opposite' doesn't always have to be exactly opposite, or relevant in some way". IOW, it doesn't make you sound as smart as you think it does, or as smart as I know you really are. Just sayin'.

Did you get the iPhone because your PC is also Apple? I know a lot of people who use Windows-based computers but bought an iPhone because of the popularity, and now they're having the same issues. If you're not using a Mac, maybe Android or a Windows phone would sync better with your PC OS.

I think this is true. There are many contradictions in religious teachings that can blur the lines of reality for many children. Do you turn the other cheek or is it an eye for an eye? Teaching that what the book says is true while there are some very plain inconsistencies sets up a situation we rarely see elsewhere in life. I don't think we're born with a predilection for belief systems, but I do think it takes more indoctrination to suspend disbelief when faced with the more obvious contradictions.

The political power of the religious groups in each country is the major factor here, imo. Religious groups that get involved in politics as religious groups seem to have the influence to block advancement they don't approve of. And because many of these groups are fairly fundamentalist-leaning, they don't approve of much when it comes to science. I think it's always been organized religious groups that cross over from their religion into other aspects of life that cause problems for non-believers. Groups that stay focused on their own group and don't try to impose their beliefs via legislation don't seem to be much of a problem.

It's a process. Planning for such a city takes quite a while, since you can't just knock everything down and build all modern. Also, an image like the above is a fully integrated system, with each building seeming like it's the same age and design aesthetic as all the others. This never happens unless the city is built like this to begin with. In reality, old systems need to match the new ones or you've got major problems. It's also typical (at least in US major cities) that improvements end up being out of date by the time they're finished. In Denver a few years back, we made improvements to a major interstate highway, knowing that when it was done in five years it would be inadequate for the traffic at that time. Improvements are usually incremental.

I've always heard that bull markets are up and spirited like that animal, where bears are more sluggish and slower moving. I've also heard that on the attack, bulls try to gore with their horns in an upward thrust, where bears attack downwards with their claws. I think those are just mnemonics to help one remember which is which. Certainly bears and bulls can both be spirited or sluggish, and attack with a sideways sweep of their natural weapons. edit: crossposted with Ophiolite.

! Moderator Note On the contrary, every single person who responded showed you that you were wrong, and exactly where you were wrong. For whatever reasons, you didn't understand what they showed you. You spend more time defending your reasoning than trying to take the replies on board and work with them. Re-read the thread before you give up. Try to understand their answers before defending your own. That may help. You still have to park on the street for the rest of the month for responding to a modnote, though.

! Moderator Note Since the thread has changed direction from clarifying questions about relativity to defense of an alternative explanation, we need to move this to Speculations so students looking for mainstream answers don't get confused. Please take the time to read the special rules that govern this section. As usual, responding to modnotes in thread will get your parking space revoked.