Phi for All

I think expansion is used because explosion implies there was something there to explode into.

! Moderator Note Numerology is not accepted science. It has no useful predictive power and borders on superstition. You started this thread to find someone who would verify your math for publication and I think the answer is clear. Your math has been falsified and no one is interested in putting their name on your paper. I'll leave this thread open until Wednesday, then it will be closed.

JohnB, I have to say, I find this absolutely fascinating! I totally understand a lot of what you're saying; nobody wants to help lazy people get ahead. But the nature of this particular protest, as we've been discussing in this very thread, is that it started out kind of vague and uncoordinated, but that has allowed many different groups to identify with it and lend support. It shouldn't be at all surprising that it has attracted a few undesirables. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it also has a few opposition infiltraitors mixed in as well (misspelling intended). But I think you're keying on only the negative aspects and using that to disparage even what is good about this protest. 1) You're complaining that this isn't a major protest. It's a protest started half a world away from you. I was surprised when it spread to other cities in the US, and now you're telling me it only has 70 supporters in Australia (btw, articles like this one suggest the numbers for Oz are in the thousands)?! And I think you're keyed on so many committees for 70 people, but what about the workload those 70 people are sharing? 25 committees isn't outrageous for 70 people who are planning on spreading a movement they hope will encourage tens of thousands. Think about it, you're saying it's stupid for them to anticipate growth. 2) You're complaining that "People should get involved and join and guide the political parties". I think these people ARE getting involved. They certainly aren't sitting in their homes watching it on TV. Perhaps none of the current political parties represent their stance very well. How do new parties start? How can people who aren't keyed into party politics let their representatives know that they are dissatisfied? You seem to be saying that protest is wrong because it doesn't follow the rules. I don't know about Oz, but in the US we have the right to assemble and associate and express ourselves through free speech, we're encouraged by our constitution to do so to influence the way we're governed. We can't always wait until elections to vote in better representatives, especially when the ones we voted in last time are listening to money instead of us. "I can't afford a lobbyist so I made this sign!" 3) You're drawing a generalization between protesters and cults because their tactics look the same. Tell me you don't see the same thing happening in any other group formations in our society. Clubs, associations, even businesses use team spirit and controlling tactics to affect the way the individual sees the group. As you say, these tactics work, whether you're whipping your teammates into a winning frenzy, focusing your protestors into a chanting force, or honing your workforce into a cohesive unit of efficiency and profit.

Here's the proper format: (and it's OK that rktpro took the initiative; it shows that you guys care ) Please read the list below carefully, and re-read your post before posting it. In this thread, you are allowed to nominate one member for each of the following six categories: Most Helpful Member: who gives the best answers in the nicest way? Most Knowledgeable Member: who displays the most consistent knowledge in any (or many) fields? Most Interesting Member: who's posts are a must read for their diverse content? Best Debater: the member who you think uses the best debating techniques on the forums. Most Enjoyable Member: this is a fun category; who makes you laugh the most? Most Improved Member: who has improved their quality of posts the most in the past twelve months? The Rules You are allowed to nominate one, and only one person for each category. Your last post on this thread will be counted as your nominations; any previous posts will be deleted. Even so, please try and get it right the first time. Please do not nominate any members of staff or resident experts. If you do so, then these will be deleted. This is all about you guys in the community. Here is the Staff List - To clarify, this is Administrators, Super Moderators, and Resident Experts. Please, reply to this post with the following format: Quote 1. Member name 2. Member name 3. Member name 4. Member name 5. Member name 6. Member name Each member name corresponds to the appropriate category. Be careful not to mix them up, because we won't know and don't have the time to check! If you don't know how to format your post like this, then look at the BBCode Guide before you post. Any posts not of this form will be deleted. The mods will hopefully show no mercy on this point, since I have to go through all of these posts at the end of the day. You are allowed to nominate one person for up to two different categories. You are not allowed to nominate yourself. If, for whatever reason, you do not wish to nominate somebody for a particular category, then please leave that name blank. However, you must submit a nomination for at least one category. This thread will remain open until the 2nd November 2011. After that, no more nominations will be accepted. Nominations must have made at least 5 posts in the time since the last nominations closed.

No, no, you don't get to bob and weave on me about this. You said, "This I doubt as I am sure that if the ancients wanted to build anything to reach the sky, they would have started on a high plateau and not in the low lands." I pointed out the actual scripture, what is written in the Bible. It IS the word of God, it's right there. The fact that you and I don't believe in the God they're talking about is irrelevant in this instance. The book claims they built the tower on the plains to reach the heavens. Period. You don't have to believe in it to acknowledge what it says. Don't put words in other people's mouths. I don't want to hear what you think a theist would say. I want to hear what you say. This is a good moment for a "mwahahaha!" All the more reason for you to stay focused and positive. Now you're telling me what I think? Angels, that's what I thought. But apparently it's not so iron-clad. Some people think it's the trinity. Others say it's the third person perfect. Generalizations are always bad.

Perhaps this is the start for a new thread, but which do you think would be more effective, 1) pushing this large agenda with many points in it and hope you get at least part of it, or 2) focusing on corporate regulation reform, winning that and then using the positive momentum to move to the next item you want fixed? I'm not following you. Breaking up the huge amount of work to be done for a major protest requires exactly this kind of effort and organization. Is it just because you disagree with their goals? How would you do this more effectively, if it were something YOU believed in? Corporations aren't bad, but they are focused on one thing. When they ran out of ways to cut costs, they turned to the regulations that were costing them money. They crunched the numbers and found it cheaper to hire lobbyists to affect the regs. But a lot of the regs protect people. We need them back again. Corporations are necessary but not at the cost of what they're doing to make more money. We're way past defending a line we don't want crossed. We need to penalize the corporations and send them back fifteen yards for unnecessary roughness. Hey, a football metaphor!

Costs on a factory unit like that would be hard to calculate without knowing where it's being built. What country are you doing the research for?

Oddly enough, I think it was the acquisition of wealth that caused our society to turn sex into an bad thing. Go back far enough and I'm sure early humans didn't even realize that sex was responsible for children being born. It probably took a little longer for them to realize that children were a mixture of two parents. It's not uncommon for nomadic cultures to ignore monogamy in favor of sharing pleasure among groups. Such cultures would have little use for the ownership aspect of marriage. Then came ownership of land and acquisition of wealth. Birth proved who the mother of a child was, but who was the father? Men didn't want someone else's offspring to inherit their wealth, so they began devising ways that gave them assurance that women weren't being impregnated by anyone else. Marriage, vows, stories about women being created to serve men, horrible punishment for women who strayed, slaps on the wrist for men. Now there are no negative words for men who enjoy sex and no positive ones for women who enjoy it. Sex is a conquest for men and the best that can be said about women who submit is that they're "easy". I guess it's no wonder we consciously and unconsciously want to protect our children from such unfairness.

Right in the concept, not even wrong in the execution. +4

Couple this with the fact that DARPA pulled that exoskeleton suit page from their website and you've got yourself a Class A conspiracy thriller going. Next there will be a rash of unexplained disappe

But arguments can be made that use more than personal feelings and speculations. There are real reasons why unchecked sexual access to children is harmful in our present society. And there are real reasons why our present society has a negative view of sex in general. If I've stifled the discussion with my comments, I apologize. It was not my intent to scorn anyone.

Geez, dude, that's a mostly worthless reply. I'm sorry, but you usually do so much better. Your personal preferences really don't interest anyone. Your setting of the age of consent at 14 is completely arbitrary, apart from another opinion about socio-economic oppression. Your speculation on what "people of long ago" thought is completely irrelevant. The thread has nothing to do with marrying children. Arguing against that is a straw man fallacy. The rest of your arguments are appeals to incredulity. The fact that you can't imagine what other people see in something has no bearing on its validity. I don't mean this as a personal attack. Please, please don't take it that way. You have historically given good reasoning but have fallen short here for some reason. Banjofrog based the thread on much more than his personal convictions, so rebuttals should respect that. Please re-read your post and I think you'll see what I mean. I did find this sentence interesting: What are these various belief systems? Doesn't chivalry protect all women from male predation or do you think there was special provision for young women? Up until the 20th century, voluptuousness was considered in general to be more attractive than it is today. Mature women with lots of curves were preferred, something a youth can't match. I've always wondered if modern industrial manufacturing and fashion marketing inspired a slimmer, more youthful model for our desires. It's much easier, and therefore more profitable, to manufacture clothing for women of sleek stature. Children mostly start out sleek and develop as they mature. But advertising tells us that a youthful look is best, so use this cream, wear these clothes, don't let yourself get too fat. Recapturing youth may have led us to appealing to youth, and how better to reaffirm your appeal to youth than by having sex with them?

As long as everyone has the same access to conscientious objector status, I don't see why women shouldn't be drafted alongside men. I admit though that one of my first thoughts was that there would be some women who would consider the idea so repugnant that they would take extreme measures to avoid military service. I'm sure pregnancies would increase dramatically, right along with a rise in gun-cleaning accidents involving men's feet. I'm sure mooeypoo will respond when she gets the time. Since Israel has had conscripted military service for some time now, and she has served in the IDF, I'd like to hear her POV as well.

In your links, there was one that linked to a story about a DARPA project involving exoskeletal suits. DARPA has since pulled that page from their website (read into that what you will), but the project was awarded to Sarcos. I suggest you call them directly (they are in Salt Lake City, UT, USA, GMT-6) and ask them what fields of study would help you get a job there.

What a great parody that would be! "Buddha Camp... Enlightened or Exploited?"

Whey has lactose in it, and soy milk, along with other plant milks, are lactose free. What experiments did you do?

Can you gather evidence that supports your idea? Big Bang theory has a lot of evidence that says it wasn't a blast or an explosion, it was an expansion. And abiogenesis theory has fossil evidence of microbe-like objects a billion years after the earth was formed, which was 10 billion years after the Big Bang, so pressure from the mass of a black hole pushing molecules together to form life seems improbable. Abiogenesis also has evidence of a chemical reaction creating life, not pressure. Present day life is evidence that massive pressure isn't required. If your theory is "impossible to know", then it really can't be scientific. Science needs evidence for support, testable ideas that make predictions. A theory is only a theory when it's the best current explanation. As mooeypoo pointed out, what does your idea explain better than current theory does?

You're using the best intentions of one side with the worst intentions of the other. Not a good argument. Again, you're unfairly weighting the indoctrination. My point was that sex is something evolution pressures us towards, a biological imperative. Surely that has more weight than religion or extremist social groups? As a result of being sexually traumatized, a lack of self-esteem is a common result. And I think the person with low self-esteem is more apparent in our society than the member of a secret society like the KKK. I completely agree. There's no question that we have a skewed and negative view of sex. I'm not sure fixing it warrants allowing adults to have sex with children, but certainly a more positive and open treatment would help. I think the fact that men can't know if the children their wives bear are truly theirs without constant control plays a significant role in the problem. Historically, it's caused men to over-compensate in bizarre ways.

How can you doubt it when it says it as clearly as the Bible ever says anything? Plains. Tower. Top in heaven. So what's to doubt? And as far as dominion goes, it's not who is ruling the land that's in question. It's about what mankind was doing with this second chance God gave them. Building a tower to reach heaven through some kind of back door, like hackers looking to scam the system. So God sends them a virus that messes up the program language. Instead of the dominion argument, why are you passing up the chance to point out that God seems a little scared here? As Moontanman points out, God seems fearful that man will be able to accomplish anything if he lets them get away with this. And who exactly is God talking to when he says, "Behold" and, "Come, let us go down"? Who is "us"?

Are you saying your husband gained 200+ pounds and three inches in height within a 48-hour period last May or June, then it happened again in September, and then had a massive stroke this past January? Were these cumulative increases or did they subside between events? Is he now 400 pounds and six inches taller than he was in April 2010? Is this documented anywhere, Mary Fox? Because I can't find anything corroborating this online, yet I would think your "baffled doctors" would've submitted this unique case to a journal somewhere. Physically, you can't eat enough food to gain 200 pounds in 2 days. The stomach isn't big enough. And without eating to gain weight, where is the weight coming from? Where could 200 pounds of human tissue come from without being converted from food? Morphing (if it existed) would require the mass to be present in the first place.

As I understood it, it was supposed to be an object lesson against excessive pride. The earth had previously been flooded, and now mankind had the opportunity to be of one language, united in purpose, striving to do as God commanded in order to be worthy of heaven. But they wasted their efforts on trying to build a tower to reach heaven instead, so God threw down the tower and made them all speak differently so they couldn't unite to disobey him anymore. Btw, why do you link to obviously biased sources to make your point? Why not use the original scriptures as a baseline? I think it would remove your blatant agenda from the discussion, make any conclusions you draw a lot stronger and help you avoid any mistakes those other sites may have made. I think there is enough to criticize about this explanation of why we speak different languages without any need for pre-digested conclusions.

Which means my pier-reviewed paper is now accepted by the salmontific community. Price Reduction Theory is a reality. Since that time, we have stopped wiping the baby with steak, and have started grilling the Baby Wipes, resulting in a huge savings. This is correct. Seriously, I didn't say prices are going down, I said there are a lot of temporary sales offering 50-70% off, which indicates that there is a need to move inventory off the shelves. A few items at 2 for 1 might be incentive to come in and shop, but the number I'm seeing indicates, along with the bankruptcies and shop closures you mention, that people aren't able to purchase as much. I love silver linings on dark clouds. I love when Americans can adopt smart ideas that come from foreign countries. Maybe someday we can learn to let asphalt cure like Germany does.

The molecules in water are much more active than in ice due to more heat. They're moving around and changing position relative to each other. When water on the surface of the two pieces of ice interact and then the heat is removed by freezing, the molecules slow down and form a pattern that locks them together. Water molecules have a different pattern when frozen than most liquids, a pattern that makes them take up more space than when they were liquid. That's why ice expands rather than contracts like most liquids do when they form frozen patterns.

Thinking about the things you listed that parents can do to harm a child, most were abuses of indoctrination. But isn't our sexuality far more fundamental in nature? Our self-esteem, our confidence, our personalities seem more effected by how we view our sexual selves than any belief system. I think it would be easier to spot the kid in a group who thinks he/she is sexually unattractive than it would be to pick out the Westboro Baptist or the KKK child. Perhaps it's because sex is a proscribed possibility with every person a minor sees, as opposed to just being indoctrinated against minorities. For a minor, sex isn't even OK with someone the parents approve of.

Here is an advertisement from a local supermarket. And I anticipated your argument that an ad like this could be forged or Photoshopped so I took it down to the docks and had several independent fishermen verify its authenticity. So my evidence has even been pier-reviewed. I love puns.