-
Posts
23503 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
167
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Phi for All
-
Has the Republican party lost its collective mind?
Phi for All replied to Moontanman's topic in Politics
If I didn't know you better, I'd swear you're claiming that Ann Coulter bought herself a baseball supply company. -
! Moderator Note Speculative ideas which should NOT be in a mainstream section where students come for mainstream explanations. Further responses to this speculation risk being split off from the main thread. Report this modnote if you disagree, but don't discuss it here.
-
Has the Republican party lost its collective mind?
Phi for All replied to Moontanman's topic in Politics
Made worse by the fact that so many Republicans disagree on platform issues. How is a small government going to successfully regulate all those people having sex and playing soccer?! -
Observation: iNow wrote a very eloquent, original, and nuanced response to your question about bad reputation in the workplace. You respond with the above, which is a classic Strawman fallacy. You can't address his argument, so you build a different argument (that he's just saying you're being silly) and address that only. And then off you go into your own copypasta rant style, completely ignoring the other sides of this conversation. Are you sure a blog wouldn't suit you better? I'm asking seriously. A lot of people don't understand the dynamics of discussion forums. They show up, throw up, shake up, and think they're communicating. The rest of us are sitting at various tables talking about science subjects, and suddenly there's a person standing next to the table shouting at us. Pull up a seat and talk, or go write a blog. You can even pull up a seat here AND write a blog here, but you can't blog in the discussion areas. This is one reason people get bad rep.
-
Actually, the way Going Armed to the Terror of the Public is written, I'm not sure your normal shotguns and rifles are covered. The word "dangerous" could cover a multitude of weapons, including a sword worn on the hip. The word "unusual", while also applicable to my sword, doesn't seem to describe most shotguns or rifles. Perhaps the unusual bit was added to cover extended magazines. I'm guessing it's pretty difficult to determine if someone who walks down the street with a shotgun in the crook of his arm is doing it for protection or to terrorize his fellow citizens. Do you have to point a weapon at someone for them to be terrified that you're carrying it around in public?
-
Has the Republican party lost its collective mind?
Phi for All replied to Moontanman's topic in Politics
There is a portion of the populace in the US who think their opinion should be everyone's opinion. These are usually bigots and evangelical Christians, with a healthy dose of businesspeople who want to manipulate the free market in their favor. They're not always Republicans but usually call themselves conservatives, even though their vision of the US is actually pretty radical. I'm starting to see signs that nonsense like Coulter's blog is actually starting productive dialog about issues in this country. She's getting less and less support the more she attacks out of personal incredulity. I'm actually kind of amazed she wrote this since part of her base has to be the Soccer Mom Army. She gained no friends in Colorado with that crap, if the attendance for our little league soccer games is any indication. -
Science Creates Religion? Religion Creates Science?
Phi for All replied to Nicholas Kang's topic in Religion
This would probably be better as its own thread. Although, imo, if you look at religion and science as tools that help us understand ourselves and our universe, trying to use one to study the other is like using a song to measure how tall your house is. Science measures what it can observe, and most religious claims are not observable, or have explanations based in the natural world. -
Ah, I see what you mean. Even if they used mostly public lands and kept to the most desolate parts, they would inevitably need to displace someone. Good point.
-
Obviously, there would have to be breaks in the fences to allow travel north and south. The psychological factor of building big walls, even if they aren't to "fence me in", is definitely going to be a huge factor if public monies are going to be used. One way to mitigate this is to look for matching funds from the industry that stands to gain the most from this project: the insurers. If they can spend millions to save billions, it's in their best interests to help fund this, or at least contribute towards the research. Losing land would stop this project before it starts. If the wall is designed to let in normal amounts of wind and moisture, why is anyone losing their land?
-
"Only yards away" is putting words in Moontanman's mouth. To clarify, "public" (as far as I can see, in the context of this thread) is being used to mean "on the streets", walking around with a gun in plain sight of many other citizens. Don't conflate "public" with "outside". It's been my experience that more rural areas, where there's less law enforcement personnel, will lean more heavily on personal defense. Police in big cities would rather you rely on a more robust response time than try to defend your home with a firearm. We've only had one case in Denver in the last two years where someone was able to defend their home successfully with a personal firearm from an intruder. Sales of guns for personal protection continue to increase, but in reality, most of the break-ins occur and are over before anyone can get their gun out of the safe or wherever else they've hidden it.
-
Does Humour Have a Place on SFN?
Phi for All replied to Ophiolite's topic in Suggestions, Comments and Support
The video sounds outrageous and wonderful. The humour for this should be specific to your life and loved ones, not sure I can help much there. At the funeral, though.... Open casket? Your lapel flower should squirt water at anyone who leans over you. Dignified black or blue suit coat, white shirt and school tie, big old red heart underwear and no pants. The ultimate, of course, is to record yourself saying, "Whoa, this is really dark! OK, jokes over, let me out now. Helloooooo? Anybody out there? *knock knock* Hey! KIDDING! Can't you take a joke?!" Put a playback device in the casket so it starts playing after they shut the lid. -
They talk about these walls being 50 meters wide (thick), but designed to let normal amounts of air and moisture through. So they aren't solid, they're baffled somehow. Snow fences are designed to prevent drifting snow across highways by causing drifting around the fence. They redirect the snow from places that can't handle it to places that can. Similarly, I think the tornado wall is forcing excessive winds and temperature differentials to occur where we can handle them, rather than letting them converge in areas that are likely to cause tornadoes to form. I wonder if we could do a small-scale experiment using a bathtub drain and some blocking tiles. Would that show us anything relevant?
-
OK, well, best of luck in your endeavors. I can't take the time to scientifically refute your idea when it's hiding as philosophical opinion. It would be pointless since I would be refuting the "how" while you're arguing the "why". Thanks for your time, though. I do appreciate it.
-
I could see the irony if the local sheriff had told him to carry the shotgun in public. Or are you saying it's ironic that our police carry guns in public but aren't considered to have mental issues (much)?
-
This still doesn't sound right. You say, "knowing how tornadoes act", but this design is to keep them from forming in the first place, so they have no chance to act like tornadoes. Also, the walls don't "cut off" moving air and moisture. You can't "cut off" wind, you just redirect the energy so it doesn't lend itself to the formation of a tornado. It helps to know that a tornado isn't a thing, it's an event, like fire. Certain circumstances have to be just right and if we can disrupt that the tornado event never forms.
-
Phlebotomy: Hitting the Vein in a Venipuncture
Phi for All replied to AziaCole's topic in Homework Help
There are some YouTube videos if you search for "drawing blood with vacutainer". I haven't seem them, but I've found lots of other expertise being flaunted on YouTube. Some people like to share how they make things look so easy. -
Theories on possibilities may have ruined my life
Phi for All replied to Tailspin's topic in Mathematics
You don't get what Delta1212 is saying. It's not about interpretation. This is the time variable I mentioned. You can take any any second out of any day and have an infinite amount of things poeple could possibly do with that second. Or you could take any creative thing people could think of, and have an infinite amount of variation on that thing depending on when you thought of it. Take something you wrote five years ago. Write it again today and it will be changed by the context of time. Much of Shakespeare would have changed if he'd written the Histories at any other time than he did. Would Impressionist paintings have had the same impact if the movement would have come 200 years earlier? Time can turn a practical lunchbox into a collector's item, or a tuxedo into a hobo suit. Time is the variable you need that will make your calculations end in infinity. Edit to add: cross-posted with Delta1212. -
Theories on possibilities may have ruined my life
Phi for All replied to Tailspin's topic in Mathematics
Again, it seems like you're talking about math proofs, not science theories. What you're feeling is an emotional response to an unemotional one. Nobody here knows you well enough to really sympathize or respect you personally. All comments have been about your ideas, not about you. We might be able to empathize with you, but what we're doing instead is showing you how some misconceptions and misunderstandings might have led you to make conclusions that aren't sound. Haven't you been asking this whole time if what your father told you is true? We've been trying to tell you it's not so black and white, and that while his take on probability might have a lot of relevance, it's not relevant to the creativity you're talking about. Right now, it seems like you have some kind of answer to this problem in mind, and are simply rejecting anything else. It's been demonstrated that creativity can be an infinite source of uniqueness. Isn't this what you wanted? -
Theories on possibilities may have ruined my life
Phi for All replied to Tailspin's topic in Mathematics
Observation: You've been told these aren't theories. You continue to refer to them as such. Conclusion: It's very important for you to think of the concepts your father told you as official, mainstream, accepted scientific facts, for an unknown reason. Let's have a big helping of perspective here. No matter what you "live for", being depressed that it's not available in infinite quantities is contrary to the purpose of "living for" something. Creating uniqueness is valuable because it's finite. If it were infinite, would it have as much impact? Further, being depressed is anathema to the creative process. You're taking one of the greatest things about creativity, it's ability to make something new, and using that against yourself. Have you realized yet that time, the temporal dimension, makes everything unique? The same exact idea someone had ten years ago is completely different now in context. You could take the same idea from ten seconds ago and it may be shaped differently by what happened in the seconds in between. Everything that's happened since t=0 has been unique in this regard. -
Theories on possibilities may have ruined my life
Phi for All replied to Tailspin's topic in Mathematics
Elementary particles show the behavior of particles, but they also act like waves. The photons in a beam of light are both a stream of elementary particles AND a field of waves. In order to measure a particular particle, you start with the assumption that it could be anywhere in the universe, because there is a nonzero probability of this being the case. And just like your elusive creativity, once you measure the particle (or write the story, sculpt the bust, paint the picture, invent the invention), you fix it in place. -
Theories on possibilities may have ruined my life
Phi for All replied to Tailspin's topic in Mathematics
No. Fundamental means primary. Nothing smaller. Perhaps you should investigate wave-particle duality. This might give you the infinite possibilities you hang your happiness on. -
Theories on possibilities may have ruined my life
Phi for All replied to Tailspin's topic in Mathematics
Math doesn't work with theories, math works with proofs. Science doesn't work with proofs, it works with theories. Theories aren't "true", they simply offer the best explanation for various phenomena, and assume there is always an improvement. Neither of these things you've mentioned is a proper scientific theory. They make no meaningful predictions and they don't explain anything. Further, your reasoning in this is irrational. Your statement: seems to imply that you already know you're part of a larger whole that contributes creatively. "Anyone and everyone" are made up of individuals. Isn't it that collective pool of imaginative processes that lets you regard creativity as infinite? Why then would you think an individual such as yourself, part of the pool, is infinitely creative on your own? It also seems irrational to assume that because creativity is finite, it can't create uniqueness. And finally, with our lifespans, the possibilities for creativity might as well be infinite. You could never exhaust the possibilities in this universe in your lifetime, even if you were to have a creative thought every second of every day. -
Mainstream science doesn't have a TOE. The people working in science today aren't as myopic and brush-stroke oriented as you would like to think. They're very concerned with the big picture, and it seems a bit irrational to think that just "stepping back to get the big picture" is something everyone but you has missed. This tells me your understanding of scientific theory is flawed. A theory isn't just a speculation. In science, a theory isn't what you start out with. Theories are the most solid explanations we have for the natural world, supported by evidence gathered and reviewed by multiple sources. The only reason we don't call them proof is because we want to continually refine them and make them better, but theories like evolution are as close to fact as we allow ourselves to get. And we understand thought a lot better than you probably assume. With regard to the cesspool thing: if you appreciated the Mod who removed that unfelpful post, why do you continue to bring it up? It was removed to help you and it should no longer be a part of this discussion. Watching hours of video when you have so many misconceptions is not a good use of my time. I'm sorry, but that's reality. I only have so much time, and I might invest if you're encouraging, but you're very obviously NOT. You're sort of demanding that I watch and agree, but not to criticize. That's not science. I know you're thinking we'd "get it" if we'd just watch, but believe me, I've seen a lot of people try to post a TOE here. They always get tripped up early on minor points that make the rest of the idea wrong. Thus, it's hard to decide to watch hours of video after you tell us that shamans make it rain because it's raining where you live. Not inspiring, and sorry for putting it bluntly. People here afraid to reply?! You must be thinking of another forum. I'm sorry you think this is brow-beating. In science, this process is called peer-review, and ours is far less rigorous than you'd find if you submitted your hypothesis to a journal. We're trying to point out flaws in reasoning that may have led you to assume things you shouldn't have. One of the phrases you used earlier that made me decide I wasn't going to invest in the 4-5 hours worth of videos you've posted was that you didn't know how quantum mechanics works, but you still feel qualified to tell us why it works. How would you react if a plumber told you he had a whole new way to run the pipes for your home, and then said, "I don't know how it works, but I can explain why if you'll just give me $20,000"? Would you make that investment? What if the plumber gave you other reasons to believe he might not really know plumbing that well? You probably didn't know, but if an SFN moderator is involved in a discussion as a member, they don't moderate that discussion. Klaynos and I are conversing as members in this thread.
-
I'm not sure if I'd call it disrespectful. The real problem for this discussion is you've put the thread in Philosophy but you're talking about a speculative theory. If this were in Speculations, you'd need to back up your assertions with evidence. Not required in Philosophy, but most of those threads are discussing questions, not positing theory. You're straddling the fence in terms of rigor, not quite committing to the standards of a theory, but being far too assertive about your philosophy. If you're going to say, "This is the way things are", you have to back that up, support yourself with as much evidence as possible. If you want to say, "I think this is the way things are, and this is why", then it's appropriate philosophy, and we discuss it differently. You've told people often enough that their comments are opinion, but until you can support your declarations, they're just opinions too. They're not facts.