Phi for All

! Moderator Note Moved from The Lounge to Engineering. Speculations

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/11/world/james-webb-space-telescope-first-image-scn/index.html

Our tools ALWAYS function well within the limits of their design, but no further, and that's their nature. My yardstick can't measure everything but it does a great job on many flat objects between 1 inch and 36 inches. Nothing irrational about that. Just because you can go smaller it doesn't mean you have to. Function determines the level of precision and accuracy required, so if your maths aren't valid it's because you chose the wrong yardstick. Inches work pretty well when we're "building simple houses", and not so well when we're trying to make a particle accelerator work.

Unobservable behavior requires faith to maintain belief in a god. Faith is immune to the senses, measurement, and reason, so it gives you no mechanisms for sensing a god. Faith should be strong enough on its own without evidence or reason. If you can't observe a god or its behavior directly but still want to believe, faith is fairly unassailable.

! Moderator Note You were asked to keep your questions separate to facilitate discussion, and you ignored that and included all three, so you're getting replies to all of them in the same thread. You claimed to want to know the member's thoughts on the questions, but so far you're just criticizing general replies. And finally you're requiring a judgement of "sufficiently resolved" before moving on to the next question. Who is the arbiter of that benchmark? All of these questions have been debated, one at a time, for centuries with no resolution. Good luck with this crosstalk approach, just keep it civil and meaningful and we'll see where it leads.

Trust must be both confident and vulnerable to be valuable.

! Moderator Note NO. Please start a thread for each topic you're interested in. There's far too much crosstalk involved in this approach which would reduce clarity.

That thread was titled God is Real, and the OP didn't bother to support their claims. Neither did you, or anyone else who was arguing that God is Real. If your "views" are more of the same, it's not really what we're interested in discussing here. This is a science discussion forum with a section for discussing aspects of religion that can be objectively analyzed, and not so much your personal beliefs (unless you have some evidential support for those). But that's not the topic here.

I'd like to use it to calculate the height of a geosynchronous orbit, please. How can I do that using your idea (it's NOT a theory, btw)? We want discussions to be meaningful, and at least have the possibility of being valid. You should "put up" the evidence for your claims, or you should stop making them (shut up). You aren't holding up your end of the discussion very well.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum. We don't allow you to promote your YouTube channel here. If you want to discuss a topic, the members must be able to do so without going offsite or clinking links/watching videos. Thanks for understanding.

Sounds a lot like reports from a couple months back, which were proven to be forgeries from the Kremlin: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russian-war-report-forged-document-claims-ukraine-is-selling-surplus-weapons-to-african-countries/

For a perfumer, making cents by making scents make sense.

The theories don't fail until they're applied where they're not supposed to be applied, and I think you've taken that to mean they don't explain everything and therefore are flawed. For some reason, when we try to correct you, you think we "don't want to hear what you have to say". We've been asking nicely for you to tell us what you mean but you're too busy bitching about "failed theories" to explain it. Can you at least explain why you think BB theory is wrong after so many have pointed out some of your misunderstandings? If you could address some of those criticisms, it might help you formulate your ideas in a way that you can explain to others.

Here's a dashboard showing what's up in orbit currently: https://satellitedashboard.org/

! Moderator Note Nobody cares about your opinion. You're making scientific claims and then refusing to back them up with supportive evidence. You can't hide behind "opinion" when you're claiming things that can be shown otherwise. If you think science is guessing about the BB, PLEASE SHOW WHERE, and if you think electromagnetic fields support your idea, then PLEASE SHOW HOW. It's up to you to explain your conjectures and assertions, to persuade us that your idea has merit. PLEASE stop making disparaging remarks about all of science, since it invites off-topic defense. Focus on what you think your idea means, and how it might be observed or measured. If all you have is insistence and hand waving, you aren't convincing anybody.

! Moderator Note Support this in a Speculations thread.

This is part of what you don't understand about science. Public understanding of science is at a crossroads, but science itself doesn't travel on roads at all, nor does it come to choices in direction that might be called crossroads. Science follows the preponderance of evidence to arrive at the best supported explanations for various phenomena. It models that behavior and uses success to predict other outcomes. The choice of models depends on the area of application. Your approach guarantees you'll never understand that because you think it's about discerning a single path rather than monitoring how nature behaves. If you do start a Speculations thread about your idea, focus on how you can express your idea without using terms you've made up, and present as much evidence as you can to support what you're saying. Things you say you "know from experience" are anecdotal and subjective, and we're looking for as much objectivity as possible.

You don't even have to make the mountain unclimbable if the knowledge of mountain climbing is learned from the tree. This god seems like a scheming old white guy trying to deflect blame onto imagined villains and keep us bickering among ourselves so he can stay in power.

It was clear she didn't want to be saying those things about her former bosses. It was also clear she's done trying to defend Nero's fiddling around while Rome burned. She wanted to work that close to the Oval Office, and instead got a three ring freak show where the Ringmaster is also the biggest clown in the tent.

Destroying records of meetings with congressmen, conspiring to lynch the VP, discussing fake elector plans as early as Thanksgiving, co-conspirators requesting pardons, lots of evidence of corruption and sedition. The big question is why bring her in early in a special testimony? Is DOJ going to be making an announcement within the week, and the 1/6 committee wanted us to hear Ms Hutchinson's testimony before that? Could it have something to do with seizing John Eastman's phone last week?

They need to take better notes then. They should have been able to evade a ban using either time travel or "the supernatural". Or God. This is just intellectually lazy. God is obviously not spending enough on Guardian training. The turnover is brutal!

It ensures investment opportunities in private prisons, extra law enforcement, and removing the right to vote.

! Moderator Note We're going to wait a week, travel back in time a week, and THEN ban you.

It was just supposed to be a joke about hot sauce, never mind.

What year is it? How many fingers am I holding up?