Phi for All

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.

! Moderator Note Even in Speculations (perhaps especially here) you don't get to make up your own facts. If you continue to misuse established terminology and refuse to answer direct questions, you will risk suspension and/or banishment. People have been very patient but you take up valuable time refuting assertions that can't be left uncorrected.

If population control becomes necessary, I have no ethical problems with a voluntary program. It's easy for me, I've had my one child. An involuntary program is different. I'd have to face that in a context that doesn't exist right now. Your arguments are like those of a creationist who constantly quotes Darwin. They don't reflect the reality of the times. You complain that current technology won't be enough for the future, arguments usually made by someone with an agenda who needs to win an argument at all costs. So we use hemp seed oil to save the food crops. Diesel is a good transition from IC engines to the next generation. So once again, your need for population control may be a bit exaggerated and premature. Not to say it will never be necessary, for now the need is for renewable energy. We do have choices. Lots of them. Start another thread to talk about alternatives to forced population control. Godwin's Law?! Is there any depth to which you will not sink? Given the arguments I've made, this is a pathetic rebuttal and you've proven beyond a doubt that there is some special agenda you are hyping. Let's see some evidence for this "absolutely required" necessity. This is the last entry I'll make responding to your claims, Greg Boyles. I find your arguments weak, you can't seem to remember when you've been proven wrong and you use logical fallacies to the point of distraction. You aren't worth the time it takes to keep re-rebutting you. First, again, your "Malaysia claim" exaggerates the area required by a whole order of magnitude, as swansont has told you now in two different threads. Second, again, you forget that your equations are based on future population numbers but use current solar panel numbers. This is not only a basic mistake in math; it proves that you are pushing an agenda steeped in deception. This has been pointed out to you numerous times but you keep doing it. Third, I'd like to point out that some of the most hopeful new technology uses quantum dots to drastically reduce the surface area required for solar cells. It even increases the output. And it's main problem right now, releasing the electrons before they dissipate, seems solvable with materials as common as copper. There is even hopes that quantum dot augmented solar cells could be formed on thin sheets so they could be placed virtually anywhere. I bring this up to show that area required as well as output are being addressed now that the cost of oil has made it imperative to find alternatives. We've relied on oil for a long time. Now it's evident that we'll have to replace that dependence with a variety of alternatives and we have a great opportunity to invest in some that don't create the kind of pollution that oil has. It will be difficult but it will have its transition periods. We'll make mistakes and we'll learn. That's science and that's life. We just need to ignore those who pretend to heed reality but are, in fact, heeding some special interest. It's easy to spot these people; when you break down their arguments, you find a lot of obfuscation and logical fallacies, and they tend to forget facts in favor of rhetoric.

Like most things, I'm sure it's a combination, but I doubt people will admit that what they watch biases them that much. People are reluctant to admit that advertising affects the way they purchase. They mostly insist that they weigh the pros and cons and make an informed choice, when the truth is they've usually already made up their mind in the first 6 seconds and then use rationalizations to justify their purchases. It's probably the same way with political persuasion. Polls can be twisted easily, so that's not a great device to use. What if you exposed them to some unraveled stories, the kind that tend to make you change your stance as you learn more about the story? Are you familiar with the Baltimore Needle Program of the mid 90s? They started giving free needles to addicts who turned in dirty needles and conservatives freaked out. Then it was proven (and reported) that the program actually helped an STD epidemic they were having and suddenly the conservatives were OK with it. Then it was found out that some people were collecting bags full of dirty needles, swapping them for free clean needles and selling them to the addicts for a buck each. Now the conservatives were really in an uproar. Then it was pointed out (and reported) that these guys were finding the addicts who were too wasted to find the mobile needle clinics and actually improved the distribution system at no extra cost to the taxpayers. They went on to use these guys to hand out pamphlets on drug rehab and the whole thing was hailed as a great success. If you could get people to change their initial conservative stance on the subject of the government handing out free needles to drug addicts, you could prove that people can be learn from the media rather than just have their beliefs confirmed. Shell Oil in Nigeria is another good unraveled story that starts from a conservative perspective.

Is this homework?

Is this homework?

Is this homework?

I didn't agree that we must "reduce our numbers". Perhaps you could explain what you mean by that, because it sounds like you want to kill off a few hundred million extra mouths or so. I resist your assumptions because you say it is "unlikely to be economically viable". I think the economics is more of a political topic. Scientifically, there are many advancements which may benefit when oil becomes so scarce that alternatives become more attractive. Right now the oil lobbies are exerting a powerful push to stay with existing technology and hopefully that grip will loosen and research funds will flow in a different direction. I've said this many ways many times but you continue to insist I'm being unrealistic. Please, Mr. Tiptoe, speak its name. Tell me what I don't want. Are you possibly suggesting that oil is good because it promotes war which reduces population? There is always the possibility that our civilization will collapse. I maintain that it's more likely to happen the longer we wait for the inevitable without preparing for it. We need to stop subsidizing oil and gas and we need to start using those funds for research into alternative sources. No fanaticism, no misplaced beliefs. Pure and simple, if we continue to use oil at our present rate and don't start to switch to something renewable as soon as possible, we are more likely to risk a total collapse. And let me make this perfectly clear, Greg Boyles. You are perilously close to a personal attack when you compare my assessment of current technological advancements to a belief in God. You push it even further by calling me out personally with phrases like, "you simply cannot see yourself for what you are". This is a personal judgement on your part and I feel it has no place in this discussion. You keep ranting against gambling on technology, so perhaps you could tell us why you don't support efforts into renewable energy like wind and solar. Scientifically speaking, not politically, what are you proposing? Having failed to push through your other arguments, you are moving the goalposts quite obviously towards over-population. Please start another thread if you want to discuss that. How will alternative energies cause less pollution of water and air? Less oil being pulled out of the ground. Less burn off, or flaring, of natural gas. Less oil spills. Less refinery waste. The list is very long. I'm sure alternatives will create their own by-products, but as far as I've seen in the studies done, wind and solar are much more environment-friendly alternatives. And perhaps places like Nigeria will be able to focus their efforts on maintaining a livable population once the corruption their oil creates is gone. They have vast wealth but seem to keep losing people to famine, infections, poor health, neglect and steel poisoning.

This is a straw man, since I never said anything about solar, wind and geothermal being equal to fossil fuels. We have no idea what the future holds, and I don't think it will be anywhere near as bleak as you propose unless we dally and delay like we are being conned into by the oil concerns. Every day we fund oil with taxes while not funding alternatives is another day in the future of $20/gallon gasoline. Oooooh, very vivid. But I don't need faith like the zealot. We can see that the technology continues to improve. History tells us that there will continue to be breakthroughs if we bother to fund the research. Only because that remains the cheapest way to do it right now. When that changes, we can switch to many other alternatives. And those will probably become cheaper without oil competing against them. There's that straw man again. We all KNOW there will be significant change, and most of us actually welcome it. I'm tired of hearing that Shell Oil in Nigeria flares 95% of it's natural gas extracted (compared to 0.6% in US oil fields), which actually contributes more to global warming than all other oil fields in the world combined [1], to say nothing of the health hazards to the Nigerian people. Yes, we will have to consume less. Unlike you, I think that's a good thing. I'm a free market person, but scientifically it makes little sense to decrease efficiency of production and waste resources on so many choices of every product. This may be an opportunity for the market to actually demand that there be fewer choices of toasters based on available resources. As has been pointed out, you put these words in our mouths. There will be change. We will have to adjust. There will probably be less pollution. Water will probably be cleaner. Perhaps this may lead to space-based solar power, which will lead to transmitting power long distance via microwave, which could lead to a need to clear out all the satellite debris floating in LEO, which could allow us to re-purpose the weapons manufacturing we won't need since we're not invading for oil, which may make us all feel a lot safer. Optimists and pessimists alike.

! Moderator Note Thread moved to Psychiatry and Psychology from Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology.

"100km, or what ever"?! How do IC trucks avoid stopping every 100km, or what ever? Bigger multiple tanks. Maybe someone will come up with a way to put bigger multiple batteries on a big truck, or figure a way to recharge the batteries when the driver steps on the brake going downhill. You seem so sure that the technology won't get better and you're positive the "cost of living will increase massively". Why can't we continue to use cryogenic fuels like LH2 and LO2? Who said we get to carry on business as usual? It will require change. Whether it's good or bad remains to be seen, but I think it's a great opportunity. I think the change will be like discovering we don't have to track mud around the house, then go to great lengths cleaning it up. We can just take off our shoes before coming in.