Phi for All

The neo-conservative movement seems like a more appropriate choice. So many Iraqis in so little time. A very telling non sequitur.

Warning! Warning! Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! Seriously, if you think Da Vinci worked alone, why are you asking for help here? Who is testing your shields? How are you testing them for micrometeor encounters? How are you going to avoid running into satellites and debris in LEO? How will the world feel when you endanger some of the really expensive and hard to maintain stuff in GEO? Determination and drive are great things, but humans didn't get where they are technologically by working alone.

It should be noted that anyone who claims they're going to "prove" anything to you isn't doing science. Math deals in proofs, science deals in theory backed up by supportive evidence to provide the most trustworthy explanations for various phenomena. That's why I trust in the Big Bang Theory. It has the most supportive evidence, and fits well with other cosmological theories, making it the most likely explanation while still being subject to refinement and change. True that evolution has nothing to do with creation, false that it shows how life becomes more complicated. Evolution is the change in allele frequency within a population over time. Many single-celled organisms haven't grown more complicated, also viruses and parasites. And change doesn't have to be more complicated, just better adapted to an environment. Not in any official capacity, since I'm involved in this discussion, but I would advise everyone to stop bringing up evolution in this thread since it's off-topic and will probably get snipped or moved by another Moderator.

So you're using permanent magnets, but need an electromagnet strong enough to do the same job? Is this correct? What holds the disks in place, just the suction? What if you could rig something that would push the disks off the holes, using something like a coin-changer mechanism? I'm not sure if this device slides the coins sideways (the way you'd need it to) or just drops a coin, but there should be something you could use that doesn't involve magnets. A small nail puller would be easier than what you're describing.

What on earth makes you think you're going to get "the answer soon"? What kind of "proof" do you think would convince "the world"? I think we need some rule changes in Religion/Philosophy. There are an AWFUL lot of agenda-oriented people lately who consider creation fun and interesting.

Due to an extremely clever viral video, your name gets written in on enough ballots to win the US presidency ( I know!). It was a total fluke, but now you're in and The People realize they know nothing about your plans for your administration (if you're ineligible for the US presidency, assume the same scenario but you're the Chief of Staff for the new president and are actually the "power behind the throne"). Congress is going to be very difficult for you to work with. However, you do have enough political capital (because of the way you were elected) to get three major goals accomplished in the four years you've got. These are serious goals, please. There may be many other things you can try to accomplish, but these three are practically guaranteed to happen. Choose from Economy, Education, Energy, Environment, Foreign Policy, Health Care, National Security, Political Reform, Social Security, Taxes or something else you feel needs changing. How would you invest the political capital you have? What would your goals be, in 1-2-3 order?

QFT. If you make it about fighting religion, you create martyrs that cause ten to spring up for every one you destroy. Even if you could destroy everyone in an entire region, someone on the other side of the globe will see it as an injustice and rally yet more followers. Their is no way to end the war on terror by military means. It's an ideological war that needs to be won with better ideas. The only way to win is to educate them. Every parent wants their child to have a better chance than they did, so I'd start with the children. Infant mortality rates in these areas is horrible. Start small, teach mothers about hygiene and how to keep water and wounds clean. When that works for them, they'll be more amenable to further learning.

Can you give some examples of the kind of posts that prompted your anxiety?

I've been guilty of Here-sy for some time now. I've often wondered why people spend so much time on unanswerable questions like "Why are we here?", but it seems clear that you need to ask the question enough times to finally realize that it really doesn't matter why. You just accept that you're here so you can start focusing on what you're going to do about it. Much more meaningful and rewarding for everyone.

Another couple of threads on this might help: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64539-earth-hole/page__p__660289__hl__%2Bearth+%2Bhole__fromsearch__1#entry660289 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/20566-why-wouldnt-hole-through-earth-work/page__hl__%2Bhole+%2Bhalfway+%2Bthrough+%2Bthe+%2Bearth

It seems clear to me that freedom, or individual liberty, needs to go hand-in-hand with social conscience to make a strong America. Both are worth less alone, since you can have all the individual liberty you want and then fail without the infrastructure made possible by our social system. And all the infrastructure in the word won't help if you aren't free to take advantage of what your fellow citizens have helped make possible. Sometimes it seems that the people who made a fuss about Obama's "You didn't build that" statement are making the assumption that, because the roads and libraries are already there, they owe nothing more to the social system. "So what, if a person makes it somewhere in life due to the people who have helped or inspired them", you say, and I say that should NEVER be the attitude we as Americans hold. Helping and inspiring each other, contributing your part to help your society is not only what made this country great, it's one of the things that has helped humans accomplish what we have as a species. Perhaps that's the greatest freedom of all.

Is your confusion real or feigned? I understand if you're trying to avoid answering my questions, but if you 're going to quote me, you should align your part of the conversation accordingly, and actually respond to what I asked in the part you quoted.

I don't think this is a very good answer to Moontanman's question, why you think Jefferson considered Christianity to be the preferred, constitutional religion (or "The familiar and constitutional Christianity..." as you put it). Wasn't it purposely stated that the government derives from the People, and not from a deity? And while Jefferson didn't want the government to interfere in religion, wasn't it equally as important that the government NOT be influenced by ANY church?

I would amend that to, "We are here. It doesn't matter why." That way, when you try to make life better, you aren't the only one trying.

Did you call back the next night like he asked you to?

! Moderator Note Not an official proclamation at this point, and I'm not really singling you out personally for this immortal (so please don't respond to this here, please), but I ask you ALL to note that this posting style, putting in some links with absolutely no personal input, is inimical to the purposes of a discussion forum. You wouldn't just hand someone a newspaper article without another word in the middle of a conversation, and it's not really appropriate here either. In the future, I think we're going to start requiring that everyone say at least SOMETHING to limit the amount of link reading we're asking people to do.

No, it's really not. The default would be, "From everything we can observe, we can say with a great deal of confidence that physics holds true everywhere." Well, that would be wrong. No scientist I know would make an absolute, generalized assertion like that. MUST be false is often easy to show, MUST be true is contrary to the scientific method. We have no way of testing such a thing.

Bottom line, your almond oil isn't going to get into the bloodstream through your skin. On the other hand, the moisturizer you've been using is probably also a "natural" product, since chemicals do occur naturally. And it has the advantage of being designed to do one thing, moisturize your skin.

You all laugh now, but I've been warning people about the Swiss arming their rodents for years. They *claim* to be neutral, but that's just part of their scheme to take over the world. First it was those army knives, now these pistols. What's is it going to take to get you people to see the danger?!

I think it's clear to (almost) everyone that there has been no censorship here. No one edited or deleted another's words, no one was stopped from voicing his/her opinion, and no information was judged unacceptable in and of itself. A misunderstanding about what constitutes scientific evidence seems to be at the heart of this matter. Misunderstandings can be corrected, ignorance can be cured, as long as it's not willful. That said, I have to wonder which is worse, actual censorship, where a person's words are suppressed as unacceptable, or deliberate disinformation like this: where the key phrase, "... as evidence to support an assertion regarding a scientific point" is omitted? Adding insult to injury, Thomas Jefferson is then invoked in an attempt to lend the attack a validity it hardly deserves. Censorship is unjust suppression, but disinformation is malevolent evil, imo.

You requote the part of Jefferson's act that would prohibit people from forcing someone to denounce their religion before anyone takes them seriously. Again, THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE! Religious documentation that can't be validated is simply NOT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. You can use it for the purposes of your opinion, but where you always run into problems here is when you try to use it to back up the assertions you make. That doesn't work well on a science forum, and you should be aware of that by now instead of claiming censorship. We don't ban people for holding a certain belief or point of view, we ban them for breaking the rules, period. Not so much word salad as completely meaningless to the charges of censorship you're leveling at us. Again, you take a non-mainstream idea, that equivalence principle should be applied more universally, assume it to be true and then argue that it's evidence ignored. Do you begin to see where the real problem lies? More temporal tinkering from Jefferson and his damn time machine.... Hold on here, let's stick to the topic of censorship. This is not another "Why do you believe" thread, this is a very serious charge of censoring someone's beliefs. We're not obligated to follow any kind of democratic freedom of speech here, but we do pride ourselves on allowing all opinions that don't violate our rules.

I think this part is the meat of the matter. And it's not accurate. It's not discussion of scripture that's inappropriate here; it's claiming that scripture qualifies as scientific evidence for ANYTHING other than its own existence. Further, this assertion impugns the spirit of Jefferson's "celebrated document" by implying that we're restraining anyone's religious freedoms by using accepted definitions of scientific evidence. Pymander diminishes the integrity of his own beliefs by willfully misrepresenting the problem, and shows us that his grasp of what Jefferson meant with these words is flawed and one-sided.

Actually, I think it depends on your definition of "rationale". There are some cases I can think of where murder can be the most logical recourse. Suppose someone told you privately that they were going to kill someone you love and make it look like an accident. No one believes you because this person is considered a normal, respectable person. Only you know he's a psychopath bent on destroying your loved one. Circumstances prevent you from providing round the clock protection, your loved one is trying to avoid you the more you insist he/she is in danger and you know this psycho will eventually find an opportunity to carry out his threat. If you felt that murdering him before he could murder your loved one was the only logical choice, that would be a rationale many would accept if the truth ever came out (in which case it wouldn't be murder, more like justifiable homicide). If it didn't come out, many people would still choose to murder and face the consequences rather than let the loved one die. There can be reasons for murder, but no excuses for it.

I think John Cuthber was referring to the fact that everything is made up of chemical compounds if it's not a base element.

! Moderator Note illuusio, you have failed to provide the necessary clarifications, derivations and other evidence requested. Also, you are introducing terminology that is not mainstream and have failed to explain its purpose. It might be wise to take a small part of your idea and start another speculative thread, but DO NOT start another thread on this exact topic to bypass this closure. Take some time to re-read some of the suggestions and arguments you've been given. Thread closed, per Speculation forum rules.