Phi for All

Ah, but criticism is much more palatable when it's not shouted at us in dark blue bold! Thank you, blue_cristal! Thank you, thank you!

Interesting indeed. I remember reading a piece on String Theory once that speculated we might communicate with a parallel universe by figuring out how to manipulate gravity (which would be a constant through all universes) in order to thump it like some kind of drum. I wonder if something easier could be conceived using this void / back door?

The Appeal to Conspiracy Fallacy?! Where's my ChuckWest hat with the silver lining?

You must trust the author of those accounts more than I do.

Flaming usually leads to retaliation, so if we catch an obvious Flame before any replies are posted we will delete it. Absolutely. Religion is supernatural, it can't be observed using natural laws. It's just such a huge and popular topic that we generally gave it it's own sub-forum. You got it. It can't be measured by science. But we used to be able to discuss it without resorting to the more obvious logical fallacies like ad hominem and Strawman. If opinions can be shared as such, the way it's done in the Politics forum, we'd have no problem. Few people in Politics state, "Show me the evidence why Republicans are better than Democrats!" It's understood that it's mostly opinion. A big part of the problem with religious discussions is staying on topic. A believer would start a thread like, "Did Christianity spark the rise of Islam?" and eventually you'd get an atheist posting that he thought both religions were stupid. It happened the other way around as well. The believers just couldn't stay away from a thread entitled, "Defining Atheism". If a Mod isn't on when it gets posted then it gets replies. When the Mods come one and start deleting people cry censorship. Inevitably the cries of "Prove it!" and "God is omnipotent!" drive away anybody with anything interesting to say. I think what people liked about the old P&R (before it started downhill) was the ability to talk about things outside of scientific methodology without being shot down in flames. We demanded they restrict the use of logical fallacies while still understanding that the topics weren't at all logical.

I went to my doctor once with a sinus condition that was threatening to move to my chest (bronchitis). I mentioned that it was affecting my sleep (post-nasal drip) as could plainly be seen what with the dark circles under my eyes. He told me the circles had nothing to do with sleep and that it was restricted veins making it looked dark and puffy. Anecdotal, but he was a doctor. Perhaps blike has run across this in his studies (hint hint).

I reread the OP and it all makes sense to me now.

IIRC, they don't have anything to do with sleep or lack of it. The darkness is veins in the skin that have become constricted due to congestion in the nasal passages.

I am sincerely grateful that you appreciate the work we've tried to put in "the beautiful atmosphere that is at SFN". When I visit other forums I see all the open bashing and flaming that goes on and I relish what we have here.

The editor in me is just dying to get hold of that OP. Do you mind if I correct a few things? Do you think Canada Dry will mind?

Pseudoscience pretends to be science so scientific method applies. Religion doesn't pretend to be a scientific theory (except ID, they're fair game because they've crossed the line). You can't use science to measure what can't be observed. Clearly you wish to simply ridicule religion. Why would anyone who wanted to discuss religion want to listen to you? You've made up your mind but there are plenty of others who want to learn. It's not special protection we're offering. Just a chance to discuss something a lot of people consider meaningful, in a medium that allows them to say what they feel without being flamed. How many times do I have to say that religious discussions can't be treated like the normal science topics? Maybe that's the difference between you and me, iNow. I don't view what we're trying to accomplish here as an attack.

What a Fascinating thread about a Fascinating Video about the current ATHEIST MOVEMENT!

I really appreciate your efforts to be cool-headed about this, doG. I'm beginning to believe it's just the topic. On the subject of religion, it doesn't seem to matter what the stance is, too many people are pre-convinced they're right.

This is exactly why we will not be having any more religious discussions here at SFN. Supposedly intelligent people who can't bother to run a shitcheck on their mouths. Thread closed.

I don't know, it sounds like he's running out of good things to yell at us.... His rants are starting to sound different. Whinier and more petulant, if that's possible.

Thanks, you've saved me the trouble of changing my avatar.

Morals aside, your conclusion is flawed. There is no guarantee that seeing his son tortured will force him to reveal the bombs locations. It may even make him more intractable since you've just shown how low you can go.

I recently found a caricature an artist had done of me for a show I performed in (song and dance review) many moons ago. I've been toying with the idea of using it as my avatar (I haven't changed mine since I joined). I think I need to do that if my name alone suggests I'm a fat bald guy.

The documentary is like the permanent Google ad at the top for this thread. Maybe we should change the name to Ken Stern and see if it goes away.

I always considered a troll to be an ugly little person sitting under a bridge waiting for an unsuspecting passerby to show some sign of weakness. Then the troll pounces and exploits the weakness, making the victim lash out (as the troll knew he would) so the troll can claim the victim was the first to lash out. But I think this particular person is trolling as in throwing your hook in the water while the boat is moving to try and snag something. I think he's trollling for a like-minded individual who will validate his "theories". That's the person he'll respond to, and everyone who disagrees will be ignored.

We didn't say it's wrong to discuss it, we said our history with religious topics was not good. Discussing religion in a science forum almost always devolved into "God is omnipotent vs Show me the evidence" stalemates that caused harsh feelings. It took up half the Staff's time policing that one subforum. We decided to close it and discourage discussions that invite non-scientific speculation. We've talked about bringing it back with severe restrictions but so far no one is sold on the solutions.

You're welcome. I hope you have time to do something else, mikehad.

I would like to know if this is for your homework, and why we are supposed to look up sites for you. I'm just curious because the first hit I got says the Egyptians were using it 5000 years ago for a joining material so I doubt you'll ever find a named discoverer. As for the name gypsum, wouldn't it be known under different names by different peoples? Are you asking who used it first for a certain application?

I think many people hold their spirituality to be a sacred thing, something that can't be sullied or criticized because faith is all about conviction and surety without evidence. This type of person is offended when others offer differing (or even radically opposing) opinions. It's a strange dichotomy that pairs those people, who are often the most vocal at defending their beliefs, with people who oppose those beliefs. The sacred belief-holder seemingly can't let a criticism go unchallenged but is then offended even more as the discussion goes along. Oddly enough, the admonition to, "stay out of the discussion if it offends you" isn't enough and instead some choose to simply leave the whole forum like woelen did. We even archived the whole P&R subforum and stopped anyone from posting new threads in it. But what brings woelen back? A religious discussion. It's like a bad traffic accident, you just can't stop yourself from glancing over as you drive by, even though you know it's nothing you really want to see. I'm not being critical for it's own sake, woelen, you know that. I hope I don't offend you with this observation and like the others, I hope you will stay and share your chemistry knowledge with the rest of the community. I just think it's odd that you come back into the same controversy that caused you to leave, saying that we've become worse since we dropped the P&R section. Odd. Odd, odd, odd.

Here is a link to a chemical engineer's blog on why HHO gas is a scam. Perhapos your science project can be showing how it violates the second law of thermodynamics.