Phi for All

! Moderator Note I asked you to follow the rules and give an overview of your concept so people don't have to click your links or open your documents. Or there's no reason why you can't copy/paste the whole thing right here so people can participate more easily.

It's pretty common for people using faith to believe to torture definitions of scientific studies they don't agree with. You start with the assumption that your religious beliefs are correct, and then redefine the science. Science, OTOH, looks at the evidence and formulates explanations based on reason, so what we believe is much more trustworthy.

! Moderator Note Identical topics merged. Please give us an overview, since members must be able to participate without downloading anything or leaving the site. Please explain how you've addressed the previous concerns.

I typically have a tab open to the forums home page to show me who's online, major topics, and status updates. I have a second tab open to Unread Content, and rarely look at All Activity, but lately I'm reading more and not posting as much.

I think All Activity is reporting where you post, so eventually it will stop loading threads you aren't active in anymore.

Exploration by civilized societies has almost always begun with a national effort to pave the way, followed by private enterprise once the paths have been established. Most of the interactions with space outside satellite orbits these days are still done by country-financed agencies (NASA, ESA, Roscosmos, JAXA, to name a few). You should be focusing on the political changes necessary to nationalize the construction of infrastructure off planet. IOW, set up the harvesting of asteroids to mine metals for use in other outer space ventures without trying to make a profit and minimize the costs. Focus on building rather than making money, so that we pave the way for money-making ventures. I would recommend starting with a global solar grid that everyone can use for cheap electricity, to show the world how well some surgically applied socialism could work.

! Moderator Note Moved to The Lounge.

You don't need to include everything when you claim the list is "pretty all-encompassing". It's not, btw. Word games aren't the equal of reasoning. And I didn't say your post was worthless, just the list. It would still be more reasonable for you to establish your claims about the "human value system" before you start listing what people value.

It does NOT go both ways. You made an extraordinary claim ("children are much more malicious and all around disgusting than adults") that needs extraordinary support. Or you could do the intellectually honest thing and concede that perhaps you over-generalized in your attempts to build your argument.

Probably billions of important things, which makes this list worthless. Whoa there, cart before the horse. You need to establish the latter before claiming the former. You should start a thread on why you think the human value system needs reformation first. What's the value of producing a "quick composite" list of things people care about? It's unending and ever-changing. And your list focuses on a predominately negative perspective on what people care about, so your biases further erode any worth.

Well, maybe not great, but noteworthy, interesting, and worth more intellectually than conjecture.

I also think humans are important, but for completely different reasons, and from a multitude of perspectives.

This is General Philosophy, not generalization philosophy. An assertion like this needs some evidence to back it up, and not simple anecdote. Citation from a peer-reviewed study would be great.

Soap lowers the surface tension of water so the molecules break up more, making both the water and soap more efficient at cleaning.

Help me with this, please. Are you talking about the ring that's left when you twist the top off a bottle of water or soda? If you're going to worry about that to the point of wanting it disinfected, why don't you just cut it off with a knife or scissors?

Or some thing. Drones could carry some small weights, but I don't think most can lift an air tank. How 007 would it be to swim up to the boat and have a fleet of drones take your SCUBA gear from you, like aerial butlers?

Approximately not enough to matter very much.

If you learn to be the best oatmeal raisin cookie baker ever, I'll place a monthly order. I loved the episode in the first season of Friends where Phoebe claims to make the world's best oatmeal raisin cookies in the world, and Rachel is amazed when it's true. Phoebe tells her "Oh, I don't make them very often. It's not fair to the other cookies."

But with the black hole, the EH represents an area where gravity curves spacetime intensely. I was wondering if, approaching a neutron star, there would be a similar but less intense curvature. I remember Larry Niven's fictional life on a neutron star, and dealing with a surface gravity billions of times stronger than Earth, but I can't remember if he wrote about any Earthlings trying to approach it.

I had assumed (bad, bad!) that having 1.3 - 2.5 solar masses squeezed into a 12 mile radius sphere would generate an area where the gravity would become suddenly intense, similar to what happens when the matter overcomes neutron degeneracy as well. If one were to approach a neutron star in a space vehicle, would it feel the same gravitationally as approaching a normal star of such mass?

From the link: The "intense gravity" comes from the matter that has overcome electron degeneracy, right? Does a neutron star have a calculable event horizon at which point this gravity becomes "intense"? Does the "high-speed rotation" create the "powerful magnetic forces"? I'd always thought a neutron star was inactive, a dead star, but a magnetar seems capable of quite a bit of illumination.

We tell ourselves stories about ourselves in order to deal with our lives, and when those stories are good and positive ("student who's excited about applying knowledge learned in studying Computer Engineering to real life situations"), they can be motivating and inspiring. When we tell ourselves bad and negative stories, they can be depressing and draining. Sometimes it can be as simple as changing the story you tell yourself. It's true that we often tell ourselves there are things we don't feel like doing, and if we keep thinking that way we'll probably not do them. We tell ourselves we'll get burned out if we study too much, or we tell ourselves it's too much trouble to get dressed up for that party we'll probably be bored at. But we've all experienced those times when we tell ourselves something different, something positive, and suddenly we're motivated enough to do the thing we've been avoiding, and then we find it wasn't so bad after all. In fact it was pretty great. What you obviously need to avoid is letting this "I don't feel like doing this" feeling be random. Set aside some regular time when you do absolutely nothing, instead of allowing yourself to goof off at a time when you really need to be studying. Tell yourself you're now "student who gets their studying done early so they can spend the rest of the day watching YouTube videos without guilt". If necessary, print out some inspirational phrases and hang them up where you can see them regularly. Many people tell themselves awful stories about themselves in the privacy of their minds, and they forget to remind themselves how utterly awesome they are, and how far they've come, and how much they've learned in so short a time. Don't forget that your brain came at great sacrifice to the rest of your body. Birds gave up much of their physiology in order to fly, and your species did the same to evolve that brilliant brain of yours. Tell yourself better stories.

! Moderator Note I want you to understand that what you're doing is NOT discussion. You've adopted a stance, and you've presented it, but when confronted with replies that refute what you're saying, using mainstream science understanding, you choose to ignore them instead of researching their validity and taking them on board to adjust your arguments accordingly. This shows us you don't understand what the refutations are explaining, which is further supported by your initial misunderstandings. You don't seem to know enough science to understand why it's unreasonable to make the assertions you make. In other words, you aren't listening, you're soapboxing. You're continuing to make the same claims even though they've been shown to be wrong. You seem to be caught in a loop where you can't learn why you can't learn these things, and unfortunately this behavior breaks a few of our rules. Nobody wants to waste their time if you aren't going to listen, yet EVERYBODY would love to see that you actually learned something from these discussions. Fair warning that folks are starting to report your posts as a waste of time, so if you can figure out a way to support your ideas better, or actually reply to what the other members are trying to tell you, it might keep you from getting banned for rule-breaking. And let's be clear, if you're banned it will be because you broke the site's rules, not because you broke Einstein's theories.

If you can suggest he was corrupt and intellectually dishonest, you don't have to actually study his work. Huge time saver for the ignorant.

The model it's based on takes us back to a point just after t=0, but nothing about either model or theory says that's when time itself started. It's just the beginning of a universal evolution from an extremely hot, dense state to our present configuration. Beginning of an era, rather.