Phi for All

Moderators
  • Content count

    17217
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    246

Everything posted by Phi for All

  1. Fantasy beasts and where to find them.

    Well sure, Deepfoot is real, we know that. You'd be shy and elusive too if you were under such incredible pressure.
  2. Fantasy beasts and where to find them.

    Stare into the shadows long enough without critical thinking and your imagination will fill the gaps in your knowledge with fantasy.
  3. The double slit experiment and Superposition

    ! Moderator Note Thread closed.
  4. The double slit experiment and Superposition

    ! Moderator Note By now it should be obvious that your style of narrowing responses to your claims to only those you understand doesn't make for a productive discussion. Pages and pages of members trying to help you understand explanations you've dismissed because you don't understand them. You stand on your soapbox and declare against the patient help others are trying to give. This is a science discussion forum. The discussions are for the purpose of learning. I don't see that happening, and I'll close this down if it doesn't start soon. And stop using the excuse that you're not a physicist to reject answers from people who are. That's just trolling. ! Moderator Note Responses to the modnote, which are off-topic to the thread, have been split off to here. ! Moderator Note Dalo, we'd love to help you, but if you continue to make assertions rather than asking questions that could facilitate learning, then you need to go somewhere else. Science. Discussion. Site. What you don't understand you should ask about, rather than making strident guesses. ! Moderator Note Respond to this note and I'll assume you don't want to try following our rules anymore, and that you've lost interest in the thread.
  5. Reputation Points

    These days, I give green to people who do their best to facilitate a reasoned discussion. I also reward clever, funny, and of course, really great mainstream science explanations. Too many people are so interested in "winning" an argument that they'll use really poor and obviously fallacious reasoning, so they get red from me. I give red to those who seem willful in their ignorance, asking for but then rejecting good science in favor of some pet idea. I give red to folks who don't understand the difference between critical analysis and personal attacks, and get rude about it. I give red to those who start with a decent question about science and then spend the rest of the thread trolling about how others treated their question. I don't give red for wrong answers. I don't give red because someone disagrees with me. I don't give red usually unless the behavior was pretty blatant. I give green to counteract someone else's red if I think it was done in retaliation for not agreeing with them. Those are always easy to spot,.
  6. Intelligence test

    ! Moderator Note After repeated requests for supportive evidence have gone ignored, I think it's safe to say the OP is not going to be able to satisfy the requirements of mainstream arguments. Since this won't fly in the Speculations forum without some kind of mature and reasoned approach, it can't go there either. I think it's best this just stop now. Chriss, this kind of guesswork is not what we're about here. There are plenty of places on the web that are, so you won't lack for input. But don't bring this up here again unless you're prepared to defend it rigorously.
  7. Trump: "Would do anything for them"

    ! Moderator Note We aren't going to have threads in Politics like this. You're asking for guesswork masked as opinion. If you have a topic we can review critically and reasonably, please feel free to post that.
  8. Galactic distribution of heavy elements

    ! Moderator Note Junk posts and the replies that were trying to help have been split to the Trash here.
  9. WAG Trash (from Galactic distribution of heavy elements)

    ! Moderator Note You need to stop wasting other member's time with your lack of rigor in mainstream threads. Almost 20 posts worth of wtf. Pop-sci explanations are usually flawed, and you make matters worse with your strong assertions coupled with weak support. Try asking questions if you don't know something. If you respond to this modnote complaining in this thread, instead of stepping up your game, I'll be happy to split everything after the first few posts into the Trash. Report this post if you disagree with it.
  10. Time Does Not Exist

    ! Moderator Note Well, try to be a bit clearer here at SFN. Chances are you inadequately supported an argument against the mainstream definition of spacetime, and that's going to put you in hot water with physicists who need a temporal dimension so the math works out right. When people get meaner and meaner, don't assume it's just them. You're trying to redefine something that already has specific meanings and applications, so don't be so surprised that you get pushback. I removed the link from the title since that looks like advertising, and I moved the thread from Science News to Classical Physics until you establish a discussion. If you get your mainstream explanations, it can stay here, but if you decide to paddle off mainstream science, we'll move it to Speculations. Enjoy and welcome. Personally, I'm put off by Barbour's first cheap, pop-sci argument, that since you can't hold time in your hands it must not exist. Can you hold any of the spatial dimensions in your hand? I'll finish the article but it doesn't make a good first impression.
  11. I used to hire off-duty Denver cops during Christmas to wander around an urban mall area to cut down on shoplifting, and I learned how tightly-knit the legal system is. The police and the prosecutors need to be tight to make sure they get it all right and put the bad guys away. They protect each other from scrutiny because they want to be effective at their jobs, and don't always see sexual assault as a crime with a victim. The straw for me was all the stories from the time of Moore's alleged assaults, and how all the cops knew to keep ol' Roy away from the high school girls. It was common knowledge at the time he was 30 that he dated high school girls. And the topper for me was how his wife resorted to posting fake news to deflect from the accusations. Moore wants to stay in the game with a bad hand, and that means he's bluffing. He comes from the Trump mold of power and privilege, and he's just as used to lying as Trump is.
  12. Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

    This seems like whataboutism. The issue is that there is a large percentage of men who assume they have a right to sexual advances on women they don't have sexual relationships with. What you're suggesting seems like saying it's OK to do that since there are not an insignificant number of women who do it too. Seriously, whatever your experiences, men have been trying to force women into sex against their will, and assume privileges that were never offered since we started writing history. How many of those histories detail a man being forced against his will? Remember, there are no bad words for a man who likes sex, but I don't have time to write down all the awful words we have for lusty women. Sorry about this, but men in general are always going to be the culprits in this, whether by direct action or by tacit inaction.
  13. But you choose to strongly state her guilt, for something she might have done in your mind that multiple prosecutors couldn't prove and are certain doesn't exist. I didn't vote for her in the primary, but I think she is the victim of some far-fetched witch-hunts. For me, it's enough that she is part of the system that allows the extremist rich to take unfair advantage of everyone else, and I think her main opposition is simply a different set of extremist rich people who've conned you into demonizing her. This is a big part of the problem. You're convinced about Hillary, but far less sure about the creepy Trump doppelganger. It seems you've forgotten how to be outraged at the deception. Think about it. You turn Clinton's control of her emails into an AUTOMATIC "end run around the FoIA", but Moore gets the benefit of the doubt despite all the testimony from victims. Hillary has been through the ringer and hasn't been charged as a criminal, and Moore has had a blind eye turned to his crimes because he was part of the system that would have investigated him. What are you "far less sure" about?
  14. Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

    Our perceptions of wealth have been shaped to allow for this behavior, I think. The smallfolk have always had to bow to the will of the upper class, allowing them their depredations in order to not upset the status quo. It's more acute now because the disparity is more acute. I wish we could see an overall shift in attitude that would value more than financial strength or your ability to make money as the worth of a person. I think extreme capitalism spawns the attitude that everything the underclasses have is cheap, and everything the upper class has is valuable. That includes your body, your self-worth, and your integrity. And there is also the persistent and contrary myth that men just can't help themselves. I blame the biblical story of Sampson and Delilah for a lot of it. The man/hero is so strong and virile and powerful, except when it comes to women, then he can't help himself and is undone. If the story had ended with him being killed for his weakness and stupidity, we probably wouldn't have so many Christians going along with the idea of a strong, famous man who can't keep his pants on. But the writers have Sampson regain his strength and defeat his enemies in the end, so we're left with an image of heroic virility tinged by a weakness even God will forgive eventually. Women are portrayed as openly conniving and treacherous in this story, while Sampson is a justifiable idiot who got the girl and became an icon of strength instead of gullibility.
  15. Speculation Hijack (from Conservation of energy/mass)

    ! Moderator Note Let's not contaminate a mainstream topic with speculation. Stick to what you can support.
  16. If there's a mistake in your reasoning, it's probably here. I know there are many compounds found in fruit that aren't easy to get in vegetables, like lycopene and hesperidin, and I'm sure it goes the same way in reverse. Biologically, fruits and vegetables are completely different parts of the plant. I think it's a mistake to suggest they're the same except for the sugar content.
  17. Scientific Proof that Life is Real

    Wrong, actually. The expert could explain it to another expert (or someone with a fairly solid mathematical education) in 5 minutes. If they gave the same explanation to someone without the requisite knowledge, it would take the same 5 minutes, plus an indeterminate amount of time for each question the expert explanation creates in the mind of the math neophyte. Does that make sense, that you need a certain amount of knowledge to be able to follow a more sophisticated argument?
  18. Threads for dummies

    No. Instead say, "Want quick-read threads? Vote YES!" l personally dislike the idea. Forcing science discussions to be short goes against the nuanced and layered information structure of most explanations of natural phenomena. This is exactly why pop-sci articles cause as much trouble as they do to spur interest in the sciences. An explanation or argument should take as long as it takes. I think we already have a Quick Question thread for simple answers. I'm not sure what the objective is for a whole subforum of it, but if it attracts those who can't be bothered to read details, it sounds like it will mostly be good for dragging our reputation down as a serious science discussion site.
  19. 3 Choices, pick one:

    You said "cure all diseases on Earth". We wouldn't be here. It's a technicality, but as I said, I didn't much care for the choices. Since you've now specified that achieving 1) will be done without negative consequences (like simply doing away with humans), I'd choose that. The more I think about it, whatever processes they used, we'd still be able to observe them and learn from them. If it's truly an end to global warming, it would also necessarily include a sustainable replacement technology (or an advanced infrastructure using existing sustainable technology), so again we get more learning experiences.
  20. 3 Choices, pick one:

    I don't like the choices (I'd prefer to learn something advanced), but if we chose 2) for our whole species, wouldn't it accomplish 1) and 3) as well? Then we could go back in a few centuries. Just sayin'.
  21. Al Franken's funniest moment

    Liberal news outlets are condemning the behavior of the liberal politicians. FoxNews and other conservative outlets are talking about how "outspoken" Judge Roy Moore is in his denials, and of course Trump is trying to pretend it wasn't even his voice talking about grabbing pussy. It seems like the Trump Effect has taken over, and Republicans have no idea how to tell when someone is lying anymoore.
  22. I was kind of hoping someone had a way to unblock a drain "just using logic". That would be awesome.
  23. Scientists and pop sci

    A recent example was given in a black hole thread. "We can't observe what happens past the event horizon" was sensationalized as "Physics as we know it breaks down inside!" There's a bunch of misinformed implications in this, but there's also an assumption that the average pop-sci reader is driven to material that implies scientists are equally clueless about these things, and I find that sad.
  24. Processing fear

    Pretty much the exact opposite of Batman. I definitely think this is one of those romantic fictional concepts, "the steely-eyed hero is immune to fear, and never lets his emotions keep him from doing what's right". The problem is, emotions can be pretty handy in a tough spot. Learning how to use them to best advantage, to blend them with the rest of your skills is harder to do than just eliminating them altogether, but worth it. "Ignore your fear" is the mantra of someone who is just about to be blindsided by something dreadful.
  25. A different approach to drugs ?

    If the US publically funded healthcare, I think we could easily make Portugal's system work. We'd move a significant portion of our prisoners out of the for-profit prison system and into medical programs that are aimed at helping them rather than making money off of them. But because healthcare is privately operated, and we pay 2-3 times what the rest of the world pays for healthcare, our own citizens don't trust the doctors. So much ignorance surrounds these issues. If we believed we were worth the investment in healthcare, if we believed the country we pledge allegiance to had our best interests in mind, how much less of a drug and alcohol problem would we have? I'd love to find out.