Phi for All

! Moderator Note Title changed at the request of the thread starter. The posts in response to the original title were deleted. Fresh start.

! Moderator Note kristalris, you need to STOP introducing your own speculations into other people's threads. It's called hijacking, it's extremely frutrating for those who are here to discuss the ideas of the thread starter, and it's against our rules. You know this, you've been warned about it and you continue to do it. If it happens again, you will be suspended.

All Moderators hate Spam, that's a given.

! Moderator Note Without supportive evidence, non-mainstream concepts must start in the Speculations section, Please read the special rules governing that section.

Fictional character.

It's misspelled, several times.

I didn't see grits on your list. Did you get to try them when you were here?

Be sure to kick Prof. Jones in the gonads for us. Unless he's already got kids, in which case kick them in the gonads.

You're thinking of lycanthropene. You get that from wolfing hot dogs.

Tomatoes are a good example of something I learned to love but used to hate. Like you said, they needed to be sliced up small or pureed like ketchup or marinara. Then a friend made up some tomato slices with a bit of mozzarella cheese and some kind of garlic spread and it was like eating a pizza. Now I have to have sliced tomatoes on burgers and I'll even eat the little cherry tomatoes in salads, but I still prefer them with something else. I wouldn't eat tomatoes alone as my vegetable. I still like them as a great source of lycopene though, because watermelons take up way too much room in the fridge.

Laundry soaps are designed to produce very little suds (don't try using shampoo in your washing machine unless you want to spend the day mopping up the mess). Body soaps often have additives to promote healthy skin. Dish soaps are designed to cut cooking greases. Shampoos have ingredients to make your hair better/shinier/healthier/fuller. Some of it is hype and marketing, no doubt, but if you've ever tried to go without shampoo and just use bar soap for your whole body, you've probably found that it can add too much oil to your hair and makes it heavy and limp. Similarly, if you used dishwashing soap on your hair, it would probably dry it out and make it brittle. Most modern soaps are synthetic detergents that do well no matter the calcium content of your local water source. Older soaps use animal fats and wood ash. Btw, if you get some animal fat and wood ash on your hands, a good modern synthetic detergent will probably work better at cleaning it off than old-fashioned soap would. Yeah. Irony.

The word you want is "aversion". "Adversion" actually means "a turning towards; attention". Canned spinach still grosses me out, although I love it fresh, mostly raw or sautéed. The subtle taste of lobster is lost on me, probably from too many years of smoking in my earlier years, so I guess I hate the thought of paying so much money for something that just tastes like the butter it's dipped in (but I love butter). If you're buying and insist, I'll eat it, but I'd never buy it for myself. I can't order hirame at a sushi bar. I've had halibut cooked and didn't mind (not a preference but I'd eat it if you had me over for dinner), but I've had it raw three times at three different sushi restaurants and it always tastes like docks smell. Most fish is best when fresh but I've never had good raw halibut even if it is fresh. Short list. I've tried to overcome most of my early pickiness, giving many foods a second or third chance. Most of it is how it's prepared, imo,

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please. It gets very confusing to have more and doesn't actually increase the number of views. Thanks!

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations... for now.

They have done that, with the Hubble telescope: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/hubble_moon.html It's not easy, the Hubble wasn't designed to track something moving so quickly across our skies, but this image of the Apollo 17 landing site isn't bad. And other countries have telescopes as well, countries that would love to score a point against NASA. Why do you think they haven't done this yet? Could it be there's not much to see?

Evidence is not the problem. Evidence can be judged by how well it supports a hypothesis on its own merit. But even the strongest evidence (which blurry videos and shadowy photos are NOT) does nothing more than SUPPORT an idea, hypothesis or even a full-blown, mainstream scientific theory. It doesn't CONFIRM, it doesn't PROVE, it can only SUPPORT. In this way, we never stop looking for better supported explanations, as we certainly would if we thought we had confirmation or proof. Does that make sense to you?

This "evidence", even if it could be called that, might support your stance, but it does NOT confirm your stance. You really need to start making that distinction in your speculations.

Congratulations to all of you who still continue to post here and work on ideas. If this gets done, it will be one of you guys who does it and not all the people who posted once and then left.

Can you give us an idea of the application? If people are going to walk through it, are you building a facility that can keep the gas from dropping through cracks or vents in the floor? Are you thinking it will slow people down as they walk through it? Do you mean transparent instead of translucent? Do you want people to see the gas or just have light shine through it?

Coincidentally, this was going to be my new signature. Absolutely. From Who's Online, just click View New Content. Then move your keyboard or laptop to the side and slam your forehead down on the desk three times. When your vision clears, you'll see a screen with a bunch of members listed who've posted recently. You won't remember why, but if you click just once on the "Forums" section under "New Content", it will take you right to them.

When I click View New Content, to the left is a menu that lets me choose from Forums, Members, Calendar and Blogs, and then lets me filter by time periods. If you hit View New Content from Who's Online, it probably defaults to Members. Go to the forums and it probably defaults to Forums.

Please pardon my previous brevity, or the lack of sufficient time to address all the things that seem important to you, or my own selfish adherence to stances I've already discussed elsewhere in the forums at greater length. I have to be honest, I don't really seek out discussions with you because you tend to nitpick over minutia I place less relevance on. Perhaps I was worried that if I had taken the time to flesh out every single observation with you in a less easy and offhand way it might have been too lengthy a post to capture the consideration of the other participants. Again, please forgive my shorthand treatment of what obviously is a huge deal to you. Perhaps next time I will be able to go into much greater detail for your benefit, and hopefully without leading the thread off topic. Well, that's certainly an argument that can be applied to anything you don't approve of. It remains a fact that we're capable of doing a myriad of things at the same time, and many are long-term investments I don't expect you to fully appreciate, especially since I'd be willing to bet you made purchases last year using funds that could have been spent on any of a number of more humanitarian endeavors. You should join the discussion on Why is NASA more important than feeding starving people. After that, I think you should write a letter to everyone funding R&D on anything that doesn't meet your approval and talk them into keeping their money, or perhaps just giving it to the poor. I can point to the progress we've made as a great indicator to support my claims. I appreciate multiple points of view, but not when those viewpoints are purposely devoid of objective reasoning. Sure, we have a long way to go, but just as surely we've come a long way from where we've been, and I think you purposely avoid that fact.

! Moderator Note No need to apologize, this is easily fixed. But when you said this: ... you committed a scientific felony. I sentence you to twenty years of hard study. A theory is not synonymous with "an idea I've been mulling around for a while". A theory is as good as it gets in science, and is the result of tons of experiments, data, observation, prediction and peer review,

I anticipated this, and almost used that very thread as an example of a title that had had some thought behind it. And your case is different since your longevity, reputation and (most importantly) your track record of interesting posts here means you're not ignoring the importance of a good title. With regard to "People who believe in god are broken", there was a reaction to the assertion in the title but it was a) not in a science section, and b) not clearly refuted in the thread. This type of editing could only be done once a fair amount of responses had shown the title to be misleading. As an example, Contraction of length under relativity proven wrong looks like the title will need to be changed if the responses continue to refute the OP. If the thread starter can't counter the posts that show his title is inaccurate, why should we tarnish our image by leaving the title alone to be misinterpreted by guests and members who didn't get as far as the content? And doesn't a title like that attract even more rigor-free members from all over the web the longer it's left up that way?

Your dad was right. You shouldn't have been trying to kiss your sister. I can't believe I didn't pick up on that the first time I read it. Straight lines like that don't grow on trees.