Phi for All

If they can't get their message straight soon, they will get flooded by people who do have a message, and backing, and organization. And it will seem glorious until they realize their original intent just got shanghaied. It's what happened to the original Tea Party.

Since you found the books at Amazon and didn't buy them, what exactly are you asking? Are you looking for someone who has a copy that will lend it to you?

You can't find it online?

This is an extraordinary statement that requires evidence. How can a human have no ego? This is demonstrably untrue. People who have read your posts find your math lacking. Are you talking about established math or some kind of wizard math? For a "pack mind construct", you seem to be the only person using the term. What does that say about your mind?

Is the above a good example of this: ... or is it a bad example? And do I believe the above statement or this: ... because they seem to say different things. One interpretation, or can it be read many different ways?

When it comes to alcohol, tobacco, drugs or any other poison (in that the body reacts similarly with regard to potency, quantity and tolerance), people are vastly different, and not just body mass. Put simply, everybody has neurotransmitters that are affected differently by enzymes that break them down. This makes some people feel ill after more than a drink or two while others can drink until they are "totally out of it". Same with smoking. You have people who turn green if they smoke two cigarettes in a row and others who can chain smoke all day. You should be very careful if you have a high tolerance. If your body doesn't tell you when to stop, then you're relying on your mind to tell you. How reliable is your mind when it's heavily altered? Being a lightweight is NOT a bad thing. It's easier to decide you don't want to puke than it is to decide you're drunk enough.

Very good point.

Very disappointing. I was hoping an uber-friendly country like Oz would make the initial push towards space-based solar so the US would be motivated in a productive way, rather than the motivation we'd have if China or Russia were to do it. Perhaps I'm overconfident, but SBS seems like it would remove most of the "resource by conquest" motives that seem to be a hallmark of fossil fuels. I'm sure there will be concerns over who has tight beam microwave transmitters deployed in space, but I think a country would be unlikely to risk having a major source of energy shot down because they used it in a hostile fashion. I'm sure one of the first requirements would be a way to tell if someone had re-targeted their transmitter away from its appointed receiver. Well, I hope you don't go too far the other way. It sounds like your green left has a real problem with unrealistic expectations, but you don't need a Tea Party either. This is not a time for any country to be misguided, near-sighted and uninformed. It doesn't sound like an efficient alternative, but at least a particle accelerator could never be used as a weapon.

Pixie dust is renewable, if you have faith and trust. Politicians are unfathomable at times. At least in the US it seems obvious they are representing the oil interests that really want the profits associated with high demand and low supply (especially when they are selling oil produced back when the prices were much lower). I don't know what to think about your pols, JohnB. Are they going to come up with something new? Why don't you guys start the space-based solar race?

No way. Paul Erdős' Wikipedia entry starts off saying, "Erdős published more papers than any other mathematician in history, working with hundreds of collaborators;" That doesn't sound like what ScotttheSculptor is talking about.

Except for the observable fact that everything we have today we got from pooling our minds and talents and working together towards something more than just our individual ideas. As communication and travel advanced, so did our knowledge base. We grew as we communicated with each other, in common languages like math. Look at what we accomplished when we were just isolated tribes as opposed to now when we're an interconnected worldwide society. You're looking at it all wrong. We're still individuals, with our individual thoughts. We're just smart enough to realize we have a vast well of knowledge we can tap into at will if we can just pull our heads out of our basements long enough to realize we need to speak the same language to be understood. I think you've just come up with a different language and you're pissed that people don't want to speak it with you. You call us a "pack" and claim we're snubbing you, but it's really just that we've all spent a lot of time learning things in a way that works just great, and you come along with a new way that seems to be flawed and ask us to switch.

But loyalty is not something you're born with, or that gets bestowed upon you at a certain point. You need to prove your loyalty every day of your life. That part never sat well with me. Adam chose to sin, so God punishes everyone. Maybe it's just an ingrained aversion to prejudice, but that seems so monumentally cruel for a loving god. "You're automatically a sinner the day you're born, I'm not even going to give you a chance to prove your loyalty." And I'm sorry, but it seems like Christianity gets to have it both ways when it comes to omnipotence and perfection. God can do anything, even thwart His own physical laws, creating any kind of paradox He wants. And He's perfect even though He created imperfection.

What are the odds that you and the OP are working for the same company that's trying to reassure Canadians that their reactors are safe? Sci_Guy used that same link in one of his other threads. And your IP address is one digit off of his. This is the problem when you try to use smart people for deception. I doubt this thread went the way you wanted it to. If you want to use a discussion forum, just stick around and discuss. No need for scammy sockpuppet responses that guarantee (lol) the outcome you want. It makes you look afraid of the truth. Believe me, you'll find a lot of support for nuclear energy among scientists, but not if you tamper with the data.

Well good luck. From what I understand, you can't get seeds through the mail because they haven't figured out a container that won't melt. Even when they do, the USPS thinks it's bad PR to have postal workers running around in level A suits. Your only hope is to travel to where someone is growing them, but not by plane. If TSA won't let you carry scissors, you think they'd let you on board with a WMD like a naga viper? You could disable every passenger on a 707 with one of those.

Astronomicommedian.

Just buy some habaneros and give them a good two second spritz of law enforcement grade pepper spray. You won't know the difference. Not after the third one, anyway.

Where's YT2095? Probably on another mission in Her Majesty's Secret Service. Actually, his name is 00-2095 and he's one of MI-6's cheapest agents. Most of the best spy gadgets are taken since he's fairly far down the list of 00 operatives, so he's known as The Resourceful One. He doesn't drive an Aston Martin with a tricked out engine, he's got a Mini-Cooper with a hyperglycemic weasel on a hamster wheel. Back in 1995, he infiltrated Qadhafi's palace in Libya, garrotted the guards using his own hair and replaced the terrorist leader with a kinder, gentler, robotic version he cobbled together using a GameBoy, 2 packs of gum and a pair of toenail clippers. Using an old hatbox as a hat almost gave the whole thing away, but now it's Moammar's trademark. It was the robot that was overthrown recently, which explains a few things. YT2095, cheers to you, mate, we all toast you with a vodka martini, super-sized, not shaken.

We'll never change each other's minds, ScottTheSculptor. This is one of those areas that people like you can't comprehend, because you have convinced yourself that your way is best and that your way is the only one that promotes "free thinking". But you come into a place we've set up to share ideas with our peers (you're probably calling it "the den"). We have witnessed how profound and powerful this sharing is, and how it requires us all to speak the same language in order to be more than individuals. We're trying to add to the mountain of amassed human knowledge here by building on what has been built before and you're trying to tell us to ignore all that, tear it down and listen to a bunch of individuals who all have different plans in different languages, few of which can stand a little constructive criticism. It seems to you like your ideas are rejected outright, but that's not the way it is, not really. If an architect came to me and wanted to show me a design that was based on a flawed foundation, I would point out the foundational flaws and tell him to fix them before I look at another page. He may scream that I rejected his design outright (like you have), but it would waste both of our time to look further than that. If there is even a slight chance that building will fall over because of the foundation, no matter how elegant the rest of the design is, I am not going to bother. Does that sound callous? If I continued to waste both our time and look the whole plan over, wouldn't I still come back to the beginning and say, "Gee ScotttheArchitect, it's a really elegant design and you sure have some untrapped wizard ideas, but I just can't trust it because of these flaws in the foundation. Fix those and then see if your ideas will still work and then bring it back to me!" Please, please, PLEASE tell me that makes sense to you.

To answer the title, yes. When you share ideas with your peers, they're going to want to see how you arrived at your conclusions. If you haven't been rigorous about this, your work will come into question. If you've followed all the steps, then your methodology is sound and your peers can go about testing on their own and trying to recreate your work. The Big Bang has had many experiments done on countless observations. As an example, Einstein's general relativity work formed the basis for equations done by Alexander Friedmann, which led Georges Lemaître to propose that the distance a galaxy was away from us should be proportional to its redshift. When Edwin Hubble observed just that, it led Lemaître to conclude that the farther away a galaxy or cluster was, the higher its apparent velocity. If things are farther away today they must have been closer in the past. I hope I have this chain of events correctly, but the point is that this idea not only works on it's own, it solves some other issues as well, like why spiral galaxies seem to be moving away from us. Ideas that tend to fit like puzzle pieces to bring other ideas together are what eventually get called theories. I'm oversimplifying here, but it sounds like you want to use the scientific method to see if the Big Bang theory is "real". Your observation, that "many believe in [it]", is flawed. It's not "belief". Science is not about having faith that something is true. It's not about being "pretty sure". It's about taking small steps in a very careful way and asking questions that can only be answered by actual observation and confirming evidence. We're not just "pretty sure" the earth is round. We don't just "believe" that. We made observations and drew inescapable conclusions about the way it seemed to rotate and about the shape of other planets long before we were ever able to orbit around the earth for eyewitness proof. if you still want to use the scientific method to determine if the Big Bang theory is "real", then you're going to have to read all about it. No guesses as to what it means, no skipping over the math involved, and if you find a term you don't understand, you have to learn about that too. No shortcuts. Science didn't take shortcuts to arrive at this theory, so you shouldn't if you want to say it's wrong.

Malwarebytes.org, not .com.

No offense, but in my experience, wizards can't be bothered to learn the math that would easily show them where they went wrong. Instead, they spend an almost equal amount of time looking for the magic that will let them skip over the hard work and gain fame and fortune the easy way. They are the criminals of the scientific world. They claim that Einstein and Da Vinci and Newton were free thinkers like them, but those men actually learned science and math first before they challenged the concepts of the day. "I've talked to thousands of scientists and they all reject my ideas. It must be them that's wrong, because even though I never spent the time to learn what they did, I somehow know that I am right! All of THEM are clueless assholes!" cries the wizard. Free thinkers? Meh, you get what you pay for.

Incorrect!!! The steps of the Scientific Method are as follows (I don't know why your Wikipedia entry is different from my Wikipedia entry): 1. Define a question 2. Gather information and resources (observe) 3. Form an explanatory hypothesis 4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner 5. Analyze the data 6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis 7. Publish results 8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists) It's only after a period of time and many repetitions of this process that the scientific community will start calling something a theory.

See, jorden? With a million scientists like baric watching every word, every tiniest bit of evidence, Big Bang has to be the absolute best explanation out there. I was thinking about the explosion problem. The Big Bang was more like an air bag going off, except the universe is on the inside, and its still expanding. Rapid expansion that continues today. Does that help? Is that OK with you, baric?

In science, we don't call something a theory with only "minimal facts and proof supporting it and nothing saying otherwise". A theory is supported by massive amounts of evidence and is constantly being tested by experimentation and observation. Trust me, there is almost as much fame to be had from being the person who finally disproves a theory as in proposing the idea that begins one. Nothing ever starts out as a theory in science. NOTHING. It's only after an idea has gone through all the steps of the scientific method many times and been discussed and reviewed thoroughly that scientists start to refer to it as theory. As far as "nothing saying otherwise", an idea HAS to be falsifiable to even be considered. One of the first tests you have to pass is, "could this idea be wrong?" In other words, if we start with an idea that all men are mortal, we can't test this because we can't know that someone alive today may live forever. The idea is not falsifiable, therefore we can't form a Theory of Mortality, despite all the evidence we have. If we start with all men are immortal, the idea could be falsified by producing one dead guy. Big Bang theory was developed over time by observing the structure of the universe. Every time we find something new it's checked against past theories. Everything we've learned continues to support BB, so literally nothing IS saying otherwise. BB continues to be the best explanation possible. Your "outside force" comment leads me to believe you've been talking to some creationists about evolution and abiogenesis. I hope you look at the links moontanman gave you on basic cell biology. I would also direct you to TalkOrigins.org for solid science presented with no agenda.