Phi for All

There may well be a certain amount of incredulity built into the process (it's hard to imagine what hasn't been dreamed up yet). I think there's also an intellectually lazy path that tells some folks it's easier to claim that science is stagnating so they don't have to bother studying it at great length. It's so much easier to claim it's not worth your while than to actually learn it.

This is such a laughable statement that it makes me doubt you're here in good faith. You seem to like making super dumb assertions to get a rise out of folks. It's not interesting at all.

The title is interesting, but the OP is a junk argument. We're doomed to ride an unchanging carousel because we've repeated some mistakes? I wouldn't mind discussing the title in good faith.

Perception is NOT reality. Perception without understanding is a very weak form of observation.

For sockpuppetry, we usually use technical evidence like IP address matchups rather than obvious criteria such as focus on a particularly odd argument. Banning a sock means banning future accounts as well in many cases, so we want to make sure we get it right the first time.

! Moderator Note You should pick ONE of these things to discuss, preferably something science based. Your opening post should set the tone for a conversation about a specific topic.

Scientific predictions disagree.

It's equally easy to feel with your heart that things DO exist, and it solves the mystery of your observed interactions. And there's the added benefit of not destroying much of the universe with your puffs of logic.

It's not a "fact" that evolution doesn't work the same today, in fact that's completely wrong. Creation "scientists" also use arguments with no testable hypotheses, and insist on solutions that are outside of what we observe in nature. Long before any of the Abrahamic religions messed with early humans we were experiencing a huge surge in genetic diversity due to successful populations all over the globe. It's been that way for 10,000 years at least, and our modern world is even more populous and diverse. If I were you, I'd never use "fact" and "creationism" in the same argument.

! Moderator Note Can you explain this for science discussion WITHOUT the video? Part of our rules state that we don't want to worry about wasting our time on someone who just wants YT video hits for their channel. Videos are problematic when it comes to discussion because referencing visual information means we have to watch your video over and over again, something we didn't want to do in the first place. Videos can be highly deceptive. And we can read so much faster than we can watch. If the members are willing to talk about your idea, I'm willing to let that happen, but it's against our rules to make it mandatory to watch a video in order to participate in the discussion. So can you give us a written overview, or should this be a discussion for another site? I'll be removing the video shortly.

It's a marginal pun to begin with (Messapic is an extinct language, and the made-up "Marsupic" isn't even that close), made almost incomprehensible by poor formatting and extraneous grammar distractions (the converse?! Dislcaimer?!), along with a redundant, sideways photo of the whole thing written by hand. It must be one of those scratch your head, paleo-Balkanic language jokes rather than the laughy kind.

Are you confusing the smaller parietal lobes and cerebella of Homo Neanderthalis with an inability in Homo Sapiens Sapiens to picture something in their minds? This was throwing everybody off, because even if it's unexplained that doesn't mean it isn't real, just unexplained, like a UFO is real but unidentified. It's also a bit disconcerting when you start claiming you know things about "100% of cave people". There ARE some things you can generalize about all the members of a select group, but not things like how they thought or the way they experienced their environments. That's all very subjective.

! Moderator Note We don't delete anything, since folks put so much work into these discussions. That kind of censorship doesn't encourage honest conversations.

As I understand the HUP, if you're trying to determine the position of an electron, you need a photon to collide with it and travel back to the device you're using to measure it. The photon imparts some of its momentum to the electron, so the more accurately you measure it's position, the more uncertain you are about its speed, and vice versa. Trying to be more accurate about the electron's speed means you can't be as certain about where it is.

We've created a LOT of tools since we created the first ones. Nothing supernatural about any of them.

We have so many Republican Representatives now who openly oppose our own system of government, yet they take the salary as they work to ensure the system doesn't work. Traitors, white supremacists, and Russian money launderers are winning elections, so we have to pay them to work against us. And they consider themselves the REAL Americans! As always, as they reduce the effectiveness of our government by insisting it needs to shrink, privately owned alternatives are the only solution offered. We don't have purely publicly owned resources in the US anymore. Everything is about making insultingly enormous profits and legislation that makes high-level corruption legal. Forgive me if I don't stand, Mr Speaker. I've read the articles from journalists I trust who think you're one of the dumbest people in Congress, and it seems like you had to make some dumb deals to get where you are.

! Moderator Note This is fallacious reasoning, and is incredibly difficult to deal with in a science discussion. Can you please do more than stick your fingers in your ears and talk louder? People are trying to engage with your premise and are having difficulty with your lack of supportive reasoning.

If they answered you and were polite about it, I don't think you can go wrong with something like, "Thanks so much for your time, I really appreciate it."

! Moderator Note OK, please pick one topic to discuss when you open a thread, and make it relevant to the particular section you're posting in. If you want to talk about Physics, DON'T bring up your god. If you want to talk about why you think mainstream science is wrong, please post in Speculations, and bring plenty of evidence (even some would be nice). This is a forum for science discussion. It's not your blog. If you make assertions, be prepared to present supporting reasoning and evidence. I don't know where to put this thread, but it doesn't belong in Physics. There's no supportive reasoning, so it can't even go in Speculations. If you can't support the stances you're taking, you won't be following our rules. And as you can see, bringing up so many topics in one thread is counterproductive. I'm just going to lock this thread, so feel free to start others, one topic at a time. We'd like to hear your ideas, but only if you can support them as well as the mainstream science we've learned has been supported. I hope that makes sense and thanks for understanding.

Reminds me of Ron White's joke about finding one of his dog's turds that said "Titleist" on the side of it, so he figured out what happened to his golfing glove.

This seems to be one of those points where you think something is going on, some kind of deceit or exaggeration or stubborn willfulness. You seem to think people with different mindsets regarding gender and sexuality are simply acting on a whim, making non-typical decisions simply to be contrary, or overly demanding, or because it strikes their fancy. "Whatever they please without consideration or consequence" is what you claim, as if you actually knew the mindset of folks like this. Be careful that you aren't misattributing motives. Many people think LGBTQ folks choose to be this way so they can get around the system (to be in a different bathroom or dressing room, for instance). What if it's not a choice, and acknowledging the truth of it was always the primary concern, and things like where to go to the bathroom or change your clothes didn't even cross their minds till later?

! Moderator Note Sorry, but you should ask a medical professional, someone who can examine you and make a recommendation based on their findings. Dispensing medical advice is NOT within our purview, and is also against the rules. Please seek a doctor's help and we wish you all the best!

I think it's because, for some folks, transgendered people in general seem like they're trying to "get away with something". I think they assume it's a man or woman who sees more value for them in identifying non-typically, sort of a gender agenda, rather than acknowledging the very real physical and mental issues involved. I also think there's jealousy involved. People like JK Rowling sound like they don't consider trans women to be women because there's something special about being born to menstruate. And most of the other arguments sound like they think trans folks are trying to have the best of both worlds, and it's clear they think that's unfair, and question the right of transgenders to be who they are.

Can you show us your calculations for the height of the orbit without references to time? How do you figure an Earth-centered orbit without taking rotation time into consideration?

Fundamental human rights need to be established so no decisions followed by the majority can affect the rights of the minority. In this, the US has a very poor record, since we've been talking about adding an Equal Rights Amendment to our Constitution for the last 100 years without resolution.