Phi for All

At the same time? In the OP, you said there was five years between. I tried to tell you the problem with asking many people who aren't doctors in my first post. Did it help you to ask that many non-doctors? Did the one doctor you saw help you?

I wonder if those studies include the impact of capitalism on the elderly. In the US, we spend our whole lives saving for retirement, paying into Social Security, only to find several well-oiled, privately owned industries are just waiting to sink their hooks into your savings. Medicare is rife with all these private schemes that suck the effectiveness out of your retirement savings (I get invited to steak dinners so they can sell me on my government's medical coverage). Even if you can avoid scammers, there are too many legal ways to fleece the elderly.

So a doctor fixed you with "simple checks and treatment", but now that the bleeding is back, you ask over 100 people if they have nose bleeding? Your history suggests a doctor would be better than asking non-doctors. Asking others about this symptom isn't going to help you. You don't know anything else about them, even if they tell you they get nose bleeding. And we don't know enough about you. We don't know what your blood pressure is. We don't know how long/sharp your fingernails are. We don't know what medications may be thinning your blood. We don't know what allergies you may have. We don't know what altitude you live at. We don't know what irritants are present in your environment. We don't know enough about you to tell you what to do when the very blood that keeps you alive is leaking out of you. Seeing a doctor about this has been successful in the past, and asking over 100 non-doctors has not. What do you think you should do?

! Moderator Note Moved from Science News to Physics.

It's probably off-topic in this thread, but what are we going to do with all the sculptures if this anti-almond trend continues?

How the world looks to some people?! No offense, but the threads you start are things you want to share with others, but this is a science DISCUSSION forum. We like to talk about various aspects of science. If you want to share something with us, how about giving us a clue about how you'd like us to interact with it? This is like a blog post, which you've heard before. It doesn't invite us to have a conversation about the subject. Did you wish to discuss the art of Ocampo? Did you wish to discuss how humans tend to see patterns in natural events? Did you wish to discuss the differences in people who see things this way and those who don't? Is this posted in "Other Sciences" for a reason? Is it important that the images all resolve to human faces instead of anything else? Do the wings and bird images in each signify anything? Do you see the world this way? Without some direction, I can only add, "That's nice." Not much discussion.

... until some villain challenges Relativity, then you unleash the Shaolin Physics of Phury. I know you're not that kind of monk, but your kung fu is strong.

Moths have some audio camouflage. Besides active jamming sounds, fuzzy wings can make it passively difficult for bats to find them. https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/researcher-receives-grant-to-study-echolocation-in-moths/

As soon as I read this, the Chanting Monks from Monty Python & The Holy Grail came to mind. How would you finish one of those boards?

Did you pronounce it bass (as in mass) or bass (as in mace)? ... and walleye enjoy it as I mullet over? Eel take you in his arms 'cause you're the gill of his breams, and you'll blush when you see the ocean's bottom! I have to stop surfing the net!

But it's a question that requires more information before it can be answered accurately. "A piece of wood with an unfinished surface" can be treated in many ways, and they all depend on what the wood is being used for. If the wood is outside, it needs a different treatment than if it's inside, right? If the wood is being used with food (such as a cutting board), there are oils and finishes that work better than others and aren't toxic. If the use for the wood involves a lot of friction or pounding, something that does more than seal the wood may be needed. So maybe you can answer what the wood is being used for, and under what conditions, as iNow asked?

It's piped through speakers on the Yellow Submarine.

! Moderator Note Three pages in and you still aren't listening to what's being said. Just because you can't believe there's no next real number doesn't make it so, and your incredulity alone means nothing. It's too frustrating to be in a discussion with someone who is wrong about something but refuses to listen to all the folks trying to help. Every single poster has given you a different, reasonable way to deal with this problem, and you've rejected every one. You've admitted that your original argument is dead. Most of your concerns are nebulous and involve how an explanation makes you "feel". At a certain point, arguments like these become soapboxing with no reasoning to support them, and nobody wants to be in a discussion like that. Decide whether or not you have anything to support your explanation, or perhaps that you were wrong and need to review what's already been given to you.

This is a science discussion forum, like folks sitting around a table talking about their interests. You've just jumped on top of the table and declared several things which may or may not be true, in a way that makes me think you've already made up your mind about this topic. I can listen to preaching on video. Here, I want to discuss science with open-minded humans, which I think is far more interesting, don't you?

! Moderator Note Somewhere there is a link to the study this was based on. Next time you start a thread like this, please include such information. We try not to waste each other's time here arguing over articles nobody has read. More rigor next time, right?

Using "nature" to mean "born with" (aka genetics) and "nurture" to mean "learned after birth" (aka environmental factors), I disagree that there's any nature in either. I don't think there's a religion gene, just some genetics that make some more susceptible. You learn about gods and whether they seem credible to you or not, you aren't born that way. You may be born with a curious mind that questions, but what you believe depends on how those questions are answered. Some people get scientific answers, some are told they're lucky, some are told they're worthless, some are given no answers, and some are told about a specific god and its teachings.

You tried to clap with one hand, didn't you?

! Moderator Note You need to STOP making this personal! Others have focused on the physics and have told you where they have objections, and it's plain to see you haven't overcome these objections. Try engaging with the science instead of telling us how many papers you've had published (since that's a fallacious Appeal to Authority argument). The members replying to you have been very specific about your math, and your response has been to wave the objections away and claim they don't know what they're talking about. That's not going to work here. You must deal with objections to your explanations when proposing non-mainstream science in the Speculations section. This is a science discussion forum, not your blog, and the difference is how you engage with those asking you for clarification.

The leader of all the saints? Is she the one at the front with the baton when they all go marching in? Is she a living saint? If she's leading the saints as a vice regent, isn't the regent her boss?

I didn't know the cinematic reference, but have given warnings to others (newcomers) recently about disparaging groups of people, so it felt hypocritical not apply the rules to old hands as well. Staff has had trouble recently too with off-topic comments in threads that call out suspected sockpuppets and crank profiles in a discussion rather than reporting them or dissecting their arguments, so I may have been a bit sensitive about that. Still, I'd rather be sensitive than insensitive. I'm happy to step down as moderator if my blindness and lack of awareness to reference and context is causing a problem.

It seems like this isn't a problem for most. This is actually the best endorsement against using faith to believe in something. Resilience is the ability to return to an original state, to rebound after being stretched or misshapen. If you use faith to believe in anything, you run the risk of being wrong to begin with, and then rebounding to this wrong state again and again. Faith is a big lie. Using trust to believe in the information you gather makes you strong in knowledge. Your faith tells you it's OK to sacrifice the stability of the planet? Yep, that sounds like one of the faithful. As long as you get to go to heaven, the planet can kiss off, right? This concept of light representing good and dark representing evil hasn't worked out for anybody but the light folks. I have no problems seeing humanity as within the confines of humanity. We aren't distantly related, we're directly related as a species, all of us, light and dark and in between. We've gotten this far on limited understanding, and science has helped us grow that understanding. As far as morality goes, statistics show that being around religious people doesn't improve my chances of leading a moral life. In fact, since people lose their "faith" all the time, I'd say I have a much better chance of being a moral person if I don't follow any beliefs in a deity. My morals have nothing to do with any gods.

From the abstract of Subtle is the Math: ! Moderator Note So no, we will not be discussing anything here based on this publication, since it's obviously got some religiosity attached to it's other misunderstandings. Thread closed.

This stuff isn't universal. I have no problems with not quitting on myself. I define faith as unshakeable belief without reason, so I don't think it represents progress at all, but rather the opposite. To me, not questioning your beliefs is dangerous. I prefer beliefs I can trust over those I simply have to have faith in. Dark can be wonderful and soothing, and light can be overwhelming and destructive. I think it's important not to let ourselves get too attached to our labels. Loving ourselves and each other is great, and we've been moving towards that goal for a very long time, and globalization almost demands it. I can love that someone is human, that they have hopes and dreams and knowledge and personality, that they are unique on this planet and in my life, but I wouldn't expect to love everyone the way I love family or friends. Understanding everyone is different than loving everyone, but is it any easier?

! Moderator Note Please don't do this anymore. It's not civil, you're attacking a group, and it's off-topic.

I've learned many things over the course of my life, and some of those were definitely an awakening. Like figuring out the HMO scam that took the place of actuarial-based health insurance. Learning that wages had decoupled from productivity back in Nixon's day so "raises" barely stretched to cover inflation. And doing some research into some ugly local history that led me to my current awakening about black people and indigenous people and people of color and the boot that white people have had on their necks for quite some time. LGBTQ folks have also been held back and held down. For me, waking up to injustice is a huge learning experience. I didn't mean to stand on anybody's neck, but I wear the boots, and I think it's up to me to try to help these folks up, or at least stop stepping on them. In that light, the woke person is trying to remove the boot from the neck, while the bigot keeps applying more pressure. Which is more dehumanizing?