Phi for All

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Phi for All last won the day on July 17

Phi for All had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5478 Glorious Leader

About Phi for All

  • Rank
    Chief Executive Offworlder
  • Birthday May 13

Profile Information

  • Location
    CO, USA
  • Interests
    Almost everything
  • College Major/Degree
    U of CO/Communications
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Biography
    Busy married father
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

92455 profile views
  1. I would change "no gravity" in this instance to "no gravitational influence of its own". If you had such a vacuum, and suddenly introduced matter into it, it would still be affected by spacetime curvature from any nearby massive objects. I'm being nit-picky, but "not generating any gravity in the area of a vacuum" is different from "gravity doesn't affect the area inside a vacuum", so I wanted to make sure of what you meant by "no gravity".
  2. This is like me complaining to the Kansas City Chiefs that when you throw as hard as their quarterback Patrick Mahomes, you lose the ability to understand how to play football. This can create a lot of issues to the development of sports. What a load of crap! In reality, it's actually more like a scuba diver who works so much underwater, they lose the ability to think in flat planes on dry land, and always look at the world in 3 dimensions. It's not a bad thing at all. I wish I could instantly run equations through my head and view the world in terms of maths and balance and physical relationships.
  3. ! Moderator Note We don't attack people here. Stick to attacking ideas you don't understand, and at least you won't be breaking the rules.
  4. I really thought there was hope for you before you claimed this. I don't think we can help you. I think you need to find someplace where they love to talk about guesswork and everybody gets to make up their own definitions for things. Here, we appreciate accumulated human knowledge analyzed using the scientific method, since historically it's shown itself to give us the most trustworthy explanations we've ever had. I don't trust your knowledge of physics and chemistry because you've already shown you don't know what you're talking about. I wish we had a good way to get through to you, but until you stop acting so willful about the things you don't understand (like science being here before humans), there's little discussion can do for you. You'll just keep repeating what you've misunderstood, and we'll just keep thinking you can't possibly be serious, and we'll keep voting your posts down because it looks like trolling. This is a mainstream science discussion forum.
  5. * big sigh * Models are the mathematics that describe what we have observed about a system, using symbols and concepts to offer an explanation with precision that words rarely accomplish. Theories are the verbal expression of the mathematical models. They are our current best-supported explanations for phenomena. THEY ARE NOT PROOF! Best. Supported. Explanations.
  6. I always hate pointing this out to people because it seems like an Appeal to Authority, but in this case it's especially relevant. I'm grateful for our professional scientists who take their time to help put meaning and trustworthiness into our discussions, and it's my hope that anyone coming here with ignorance can have it dispelled if they're willing to listen and learn to people who do this for a living. It's great that people think so highly of science, but it's a methodology that has to be applied correctly by humans, so it can't be infallible, by definition. If science and observation was perfect, we wouldn't need peer review. We wouldn't need theory. We could just observe that all swans are white, claim it to be proven, and never check on swans again.
  7. Sorry, but that's not a great answer. It's a cop-out. You're basically demanding that aliens exist and are here, ignoring that there's no evidence that strong to support such a assertion, and then claiming that operating on some kind of unfamiliar "frequency" we don't understand makes them invisible. Communication is all about patterns, and we're pattern-finding machines with some of the best communication skills on the planet. While there are maths and physics concepts we don't fully understand, it's doubtful that lack of knowledge would stop us from recognizing patterns aimed at communicating information. We might not know what an alien communication says exactly, but do you really think we would fail to recognize an attempt to communicate? I was actually thinking of that as a reason why NOT to have flying cars. If you remove traffic congestion through automation, why do you need to fly? And if you need to fly, why do you need a car? I suppose if self-driving cars made auto insurance unnecessary, the same might apply to self-flying cars, but I don't think you'll ever remove the issue of liability. Still, I don't think flying cars are going to be anything but a billionaire's diversion. I don't want to be in the skies with some of the people I've driven on the ground with.
  8. Do you really think most drivers could learn 3D? I don't, and I can't even imagine what it would cost to insure a flying car, much less all the things it might collide with. Right now I'm probably not covered if I plow into the 35th floor of a high-rise building. Also, we're going to need a few orders of magnitude more air-traffic controllers. I'm skeptical that energy is the only thing flying cars suffer from.
  9. Yuck, that's terrible reasoning. Lack of evidence for or against something is NOT evidence of lack. Your reasoning might hold up in a court trying to convict someone, but lack of evidence for another civilization simply means we haven't encountered one, NOT that they can't exist. We are allowed to say "We don't know", you know.
  10. ! Moderator Note I'm afraid this is something only YOU see. If you find a way to persuade others, let me know and I can open this monologue up to discussion again.
  11. Everything you're saying is a guess, obviously. You have no way to know any of this. This is why your subjective opinion doesn't mean anything in science. You can't possibly know we're the first intelligent creatures in the whole universe. No amount of solid reasoning could support such obvious guesswork. Friendly advice: you should confine your assertions to your own threads. If you keep polluting mainstream threads with your misunderstandings and preachings, you're going to get banned. Mainstream science only in mainstream sections. If you want to disprove science, start in Speculations and bring tons of evidence.
  12. Listen, we're a science discussion forum here. If you want to invent a new version of science that's NEVER wrong, you should go somewhere else. You aren't doing what the vast majority of scientists call science, and your replies look like you're a petulant kid who is trolling the professionals with his misunderstandings. I hope that's not the case, but I'm not sure what to do about your willful ignorance. MOST people come here to learn, not to preach unreasonable stances. I'm not a mathematician, but even I can see that it's the math that's infallible, while our verbal description of theory often falls short (because of human interpretations like YOURS). Science is based on modeled maths, and our theories describe the models. Period. I'm not sure where you learned differently, but it's wrong. If you keep screaming with your fingers in your ears, you won't learn anything.
  13. Wow. That's horrible reasoning, and reasoning is what you really need instead of logic (especially your hamstrung definition of it). You seem to misunderstand the concept of objectivity. If everyone had a different version of maths, where is the objectivity science searches so hard and rigorously to defend? Your definitions are subjective, and therefore worthless in science. Where did you get all this misunderstanding, videos and pop science articles? If you can stay here and read more than you post, I can almost guarantee you'll learn something.
  14. Phlogiston and steady state theories have both been shown wrong.