Phi for All

At least part of why cases of depression have accelerated is because we assume whatever the person is depressed about is a personal thing, and not something systemic that may be affecting us all. We consider it their trauma to deal with, even though we're here to lend support where we can. But what if depression is just a normal human response to the kinds of crazy we're seeing these days in some countries? In the US, we're realizing how enslaved we've all been while celebrating our freedoms. We have inalienable rights guaranteed to the People by our Constitution, but we never passed an equal rights amendment to truly include all People. We escaped the tyranny of the wealthy so we could let the wealthy lead us right back to being underrepresented by our own leaders. Maybe we should focus more on what's causing such depression instead of finding ways to live with it.

Public confidence in SCOTUS sinks to 25%: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/06/23/public-confidence-in-supreme-court-sinks-to-25-poll-says/?sh=4c7171975fc5 Another branch of US government that does NOT represent the will of the People.

Hopefully the teacher will require evidence, and the transcripts of their posts will be reviewed. They clearly aren't the victim of insult and ridicule.

You've demonstrated zero capacity for enlightenment. Even now, it's obvious you can't even be bothered to look up who Fred Hoyle was. It might make you feel better to stick to the pop-sci descriptions you've read about, but it makes it difficult to discuss the actual science with you.

Apparently, it's a mammal thing, and it works across species: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/crying-baby-mammals-all-sound-the-same-to-mama/

BBT isn't about the beginning of the universe. It doesn't even encompass the beginning of time as we know it. Fred Hoyle was a mathematician and astronomer, not an astrophysicist, and NOT a supporter of BB theory. He supported the steady state model, and came up with the name "Big Bang" as mockery of the theory, because like you he thought it was about an explosion rather than a rapid expansion. Gosh, have you counted how many posts you have, and how many of them contain incorrect information? Your signal to noise ratio isn't good. You make a LOT of assertions that are wrong, and then seem to move on to the next before acknowledging your mistakes.

You're wrong. It's a rapid expansion of all there is, NOT an explosion into another space with a center of the explosion. The universe is all there is. It's a tough concept, and you're not the first to get it wrong. You're not even the most stubborn. Many people waste their lives on misunderstandings, and we're hoping that's not going to happen with you.

If we sweated out any significant amount of noxious substances, our clothing would show the effects. And our skin is actually a barrier against toxins, so it's not a good mechanism for the body to use. The scam that really gets me is the electrodes in the foot bath that allegedly remove "toxins" through the soles of the feet, and you know it's working because the water looks rusty and brown.

If this was true, average life expectancy would have been greater in the past when pollution levels were lower. Instead, we live longer now. I get the feeling you didn't listen to the earlier comments about "toxins" and how they're mostly made up by people wanting you to buy their "cleansers". It can't be "due to these toxins which build up in our bodies during the course of our lives", because that's not what happens. Our bodies have the ability to clean up waste and debris at the cellular level. We end up dying because these systems become less effective as we age.

How can the best current explanation be the answer to a question when the explanation could change with new information? Perhaps this is just semantics, but to me an "answer" is going to be the same today as it was a hundred years ago, or a hundred years from now. "Four" is an answer to "What is 2+2?" The explanation for how allele changes within a population over time can cause evolutionary changes in a species is never going to be an answer. It's always going to be a vibrant, maturing theory that explains the process to best of our current knowledge.

Your answer to your question is correct, but the last sentence is off by a little. You can't have a bottle of height or weight, but NOT "just like" you can't have a bottle of sound. Height and weight are measurements in this instance, but sound is always an event. Like lightning or fire, sound requires the right conditions before it happens, and when the conditions are right, it's practically inevitable.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/anti-satellite-weapons/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=anti-satellite-weapons Even testing these systems causes more debris in the orbits these satellites use. And their potential for destruction, as we rely more and more on satellite technology, makes them as much a concern as nuclear weapons. Do you think a ban can be implemented worldwide, or is it going to take some kind of horrendous accident that fills the skies above our heads with all kinds of nasty? Should we be weaponizing space?

Well, I'll repeat myself, but now you don't get to whine about others not reading what you wrote And then I went on and on about how science is looking for the best supported explanations. It was just a couple posts ago.

The one you didn't study in school, and are now desperately trying to debunk so you can appear educated. Look, it takes some of us longer to get it, but once you try learning actual science instead of this weird mental masturbation where you make it up based on ignorance, it gets easier to put together. Science is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle cut from the layers of an onion. It's all connected, and you need to put a LOT of effort into learning, but ultimately it will be worth much more than what you're doing. Remember, your computer and GPS work because Einstein was right.

OK. So it's more to do with our being fallible in the first place. But science tries to account for this. Fine, but that still doesn't mean science or theories are "flawed" just because we're not perfect. This is an important distinction, between being wrong/flawed and being limited by our explanatory powers. And remember to make the distinction between answers and the best supported explanations. Science isn't looking for answers. Nobody is shoving aside these questions. Again, you misunderstand the reasoning behind the reasons. We CAN'T know for sure about anything that happened prior to the sudden expansion of the universe. Our ability to measure such things ends a tiny bit after the expansion began, so we can't know what was going on at t=0, much less before that. It would just be guesswork, since the necessary information is destroyed in the formation of our universe. I don't understand your position on this at all. Are you saying that because we don't know what happened before the BB, we don't know anything?!

The model doesn't go back that far, but the maths suggest even greater density than that of a black hole, where the matter has overcome both electron and neutron degeneracy. That doesn't suggest there was nothing there before that. You can believe what you like, but evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is what creationists deny in favor of their religion. If one group is wrong, I'd say it's the ones without the mountains of evidence in support of them. Not what happened. Stick around, learn some science, and welcome. This doesn't contradict observation. If only you could get this god to allow us to observe them.... Omnipotent but drops the grenade at His own feet?! I like this one. Sounds like Loki.

Discussion might not be right for you. You don't seem to read what other write, and prefer your own interpretations about everything, even when it's explained to you. Knowledge doesn't come easily to those who are overly stubborn about learning. Can I suggest you start a blog somewhere? If you aren't interested in studying mainstream science, you have to persuade others that you know better than those who've helped put together the total of accumulated human knowledge to date. You don't need us correcting you with facts you haven't studied, and with a blog you can block comments and just post whatever comes to you.

NO. Within the applicability of a theory, it has tremendous explanatory and predictive powers. Outside that, not so much, but that's not a mistake or flaw, it's a limitation. Is it a flaw that your house can't protect your car from the rain if you don't have a garage as well? Flawed because it was developed by man?! That sounds like religious guilt. Science itself was developed by man, and has been filling the gaps in our knowledge caused by belief in religions. Again, you see flaws where there's only limitations. Now your last sentence is partially right. Theories aren't claimed as proof because they're constantly updated with the latest information from observation and experimentation. That's actually what makes theory the strongest concept in science. But again, it's not a flaw but rather the limitation of using the best CURRENT information. I can't think of a better way to make certain our knowledge is sound. We're always looking for better information rather than answers, because when you think you've found the answer, you stop looking. We don't ever want to stop looking.

I watched a short video of this over the weekend! Someone had taken a wad of steel wool, placed it on a kitchen scale, then touched the steel wool with a 9V battery to start it burning. The scale drops until iron oxides start forming, at which point the scale starts registering a gain.

That's how I interpret pro-choice as well. I recently heard of an exchange between two women on either side of that fence, and the pro-life woman admitted she had gone to a clinic to abort her daughter but walked out before the procedure, and considered it the best decision she ever made because she loves her daughter so much. The pro-choice woman just told her she was very happy the woman had been given the choice.

This isn't true either. It's not a flaw if a theory is used outside it's area of applicability. If you want to understand gravity better, you don't use Special Relativity, but that's not a flaw with SR.

Specifically, you made claims about magnets that you couldn't support, and despite several people trying to explain it to you, you just kept waiving your hands insistently until the thread was closed. Our policy on that is you can't bring it up again in other threads because you didn't support it the first time. If you think you can actually support your ideas, open a new thread in Speculations. But you better have more than what you demonstrated in those trashed threads. Nobody but you knew what you were talking about there. Or you can pretend we told you your logic isn't allowed and we're blocking you.

As I said before, your version of logic isn't mainstream, so you need to explain it before anyone can accept it. Not sure why you think formal logic isn't allowed here. If it's anything like the posts in the Trash, you'll need to explain it and persuade us that it has meaning, and for that type of discussion we have the Speculations section.

If you would like to start a thread in Speculations in order to get feedback on your version of formal logic, you can do so, and it will stay open as long as you can defend it with a decent amount of rigor. But when you introduced it before, you were using it as if it made sense to anyone but you, and it got thrown in the Trash.

Philosophical logic, mathematical logic, or "This makes more sense to me" logic?