Phi for All

Works for both a hole and an ocean. Works for an ocean, since an ocean can be filled but never gets full. Doesn't work for a hole, which when full is no longer, by definition, a hole. An ocean is one answer that works.

An objection which has squat to do with the premise of the question posed in the OP. And if you *are* talking about value, as DrP points out, 0.625kg is quite a bit when you have to factor it as part of the payload of a Moon trip.

That just means it can't be the answer. As you say, if it's filled it ceases to be a hole that can be filled. It has to be an ocean. You can take stuff out of it, but if you keep filling it it never gets full, just bigger.

Well, let's close this now that Tom Vose/Graviphoton/Tsadi has been banned again.

I think "lies" is inaccurate. Misinformation is closer, and we all know how quick we are to jump on inaccuracies so they don't gain tacit approval. As far as I know, Tom Vose has only lied about this account at Bebo not being his. It's hard to gain trust back after it's been broken, but I, for one, see a bit of a change happening. Tom Vose, if you stay here long enough and get over our initial reactions to your initial stimuli, we all may benefit. Scientific method is a process, not a road map, so don't feel like we are trying to yank you onto tracks that all lead to the same place.

Thanks iNow, you too. I'm not really verklempt, it's just that sliding down the chimney makes me Thor. I'd like to see more people remember to switch them back by July.

Relative to what?

Kudos, Tom Vose. That took some courage.

I didn't do any of this but one of my cats is still fascinated by my tank. She sits and stares like a couch potato with a sitcom. If I had done more research before purchasing my fish, perhaps my cat would be more intellectually challenged.

I'll second that honor. Credit where it's due. I can't even imagine what he must feel like now. I think he also deserves a pat on the back for not having Stephen Colbert taken care of after his unbelievably deft roast at the a few years back. Hell, G. Bush should get a medal for staying seated through those excruciating 10 minutes.

This thread is closed until I can sort out the off-topic quantum computing bits from the main thread. OK, the posts about quantum computing capability have been split to their own thread right here. This thread is open again. Please keep to the OP.

That's what Snail said in post #4, and he's not a parent, apparently. But "No reason" works for, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" as well as, "Why did George Bush get elected twice?" The difference is in whether you shrug your shoulders or tap your skull when saying, "No reason".

No reason. Seriously, try this answer out for all why-type questions. It works.

Morning. Mrs Claus: "Can I make you some breakfast dear? How about some bacon and eggs, or maybe a nice sectioned grapefruit and a cup of coffee?" Santa: "No thanks, my dear. The Viagra really takes the edge off my appetite." Afternoon. Mrs Claus: "Can I make you some lunch dear? I can make you a grilled cheese sandwich and a glass of milk, wouldn't take a second. How's that sound?" Santa: "No thanks, my dear. I'm just not very hungry." Evening. Mrs Claus: "Dear, you really should eat something. Why don't I whip up a quick chicken stir fry, that won't take long. Or I could call out for pizza delivery, we haven't done that in a while." Santa: "No thanks, my dear. The Viagra really takes the edge off my appetite." Mrs Claus: "Well then would you please get off me 'cause I'm STARVING!"

Maybe you need three one-syllable words instead, such as: The lovely thing 'bout Chemistry is that it works for thee *or* me. English teachers love it when you throw some thees into a sonnet.

I never use it unless I have to, but thanks, I'll pass this along to those I know who do.

What's your sine? You have a well-defined set of binomials! I'm sufficiently large myself. Care to bracket and apply yourself to some index raising?

Call it conscience then. Too little and you become grandiose. Too much and you lack self-esteem. The balance is tricky but imperative, imo.

The problem isn't lack of proof. The problem is lack of time before the average person stops listening to all the proof you have.

The right amount of shame is extremely important. Too much and we're not self-confident. Too little and we're grandiose. We need just enough shame to keep us in line with our societies needs.

We are at a point where we can't produce our ideas fast enough to bring them to market before they are obsolete, and this will only get worse. AI will most certainly be applied to that problem, creating thinking production processes that can adapt more quickly to new innovation. It's a scary thought to me that we could be setting something loose that will outpace even our own intellect, and give it access to creating its own next generations.

I would caution you in the overuse of the word "theory" to mean "speculation". In science, a theory is the best you can get. Start with an idea, make some predictions based on that idea, design some experiments, collect some data. When others can duplicate your work, you can think about starting to call it a theory. So if anyone seems annoyed at you (which they will if you keep posting a "Theory of the Day" ), it's probably because you're crowning your achievement without the rigor it demands. Maybe you should get used to saying "Hypothesis of the Day" instead.

The Millionaire Next Door is a good book very close to this subject. It's full of stories about hard-working people who invested shrewdly, eschewed lavish consumerism and ended up with a million dollars plus in liquid assets. And typically, when they died and left it all to their kids (the very motivation for their shrewd money management in the first place), the kids blew through it in an appallingly short time, mostly because they felt entitled to lavish consumerism. I'm sure they all felt "bailed out" when mom and dad died.

Tyson bred chickens with four legs decades ago. They don't sell them because they can't catch them.

But isn't this just like saying that, because I object to an unjust war, I don't support the troops? If we artificially prop up the auto makers, we teach them and the unions that they don't need to be as smart as the companies who don't find themselves in this position. The workers may need to realize that times have changed, and that making vehicles that people want and can afford is the balance to their gainful employment. The managers may need to realize that people are waking up and deciding that all they really want is to buy a car, not go in debt for the next 6 years in order to support 2 million industry-related workers.