Phi for All

It's a tactic he uses successfully to destroy limitations. He lies so much it becomes difficult to gauge their degree of egregiousness, so he gets away with behavior over everyone else's limit. He screams that the press are the enemy of the people, and they don't hold him as accountable as they would anyone else (why aren't normal outlets reporting the true craziness he spouts at his rallies? Why aren't we getting a journalistic analysis of why someone rants for half an hour about imaginary toilets that require 10 flushes?). He screams so loudly about the corruption of others and it absolutely makes a lot of people ignore the fact that he's King of the Swamp, probably one of the most corrupt leaders the US has ever had. He gets away with it because we let him. We don't demand actual information from our leadership. We fall prey to tactics most of us find obvious. The taxpayers almost completely fund this 24/7/365 political circus in one way or another, helping to perpetuate a system designed to favor wealthy participants only. We willingly let it happen, willingly cut our own throats and act against our own best interest, just like we're willing to eat or drink or drug ourselves to death. The vast majority need publicly funded programs for education and health, yet we willingly let the elite condemn that as "socialism". Trump is purposefully increasing our tolerance for outrage, and it seems to be working. With Republicans, when it comes to asking a foreign power for favors against political opponents, when you're a POTUS they let you do it.

Tradition is a powerful motivator, but it does seem to often stand in the way of progressive attitudes. I've always thought of the UK monarchy as a symbol of duty and stability, something that doesn't change and can be counted on as a cultural rallying point. At the same time, I think many traditions keep us from trying things that may be more appropriate to our times and circumstances. I've always had the impression that the UK was not as generally racist as the US is, or at least parts of the US. Perhaps the "upper crust" is not immune to the kind of thinking that plagues our southern states? And I would imagine that royal bloodlines are much more sensitive to "outside" influences, since much of their status is derived from who their parents were.

Please define what you mean by "scopes". It can mean the entire area that is dealt with by the subject (which would be quite difficult to list here as part of a discussion ), and it can mean opportunities to deal with the subject (which again is quite a large amount of things). It always helps to be specific when starting a discussion so everybody knows what you want to talk about.

I have to say, over the years, the mainstream deniers have given me the impression that it's less about poking at the establishment and more about the superiority they feel when they discover they don't have to actually study it if they can ridicule it, claiming it isn't worth it. Science is a LOT of work.

! Moderator Note Discussions can't be meaningful if there's no attempt to explain the terms and circumstances of the topic. Our #1 rule of civility requires: Be Coherent When you reply, try to make as much sense as possible. Organize your post into paragraphs or sections as to make it easier to understand. If nobody knows what you're saying, they aren't going to learn anything from it, or try to reply to it. If you are going to say "it" or "one" or "they" then make sure we know what you are talking about. "It" is not a very descriptive word and people may get confused as to what you are trying to say.

You're right, we need to build an applicator to isolate human influence from the experiment and give us consistency if we're going to get federal funding for this.

! Moderator Note I blame the new voice recognition. People can now post without using their fingers for typing, so they keep them firmly stuck in their ears., Thread closed, sockpuppet banned, lost potential weeped over.

Your only questions are sarcastic and unhelpful. Your assertions have mostly been wrong, and have been pointed out to you, but you've chosen to ignore them. You're rejecting explanations without reason, simply because they don't seem intuitive to you. This isn't personal, it isn't about you. It's your approach to learning that's causing a problem in discussions. I have to ask, is there any way to reason with you on this subject, or is your incredulity always going to be an impassable obstacle? How can we turn this discussion into a meaningful one? Several people have tried explaining what mainstream science says on this subject, but it's hard to have a conversation with you when half the effort is spent trying to get your fingers out of your ears.

! Moderator Note westom, it's abundantly clear that you're being purposely obtuse about the definitions you're insisting upon. Ignoring people when they ask for clarity shows you have poor discussion skills. You really need a forum like this, but please don't stay here if you're going to continue block your own learning experience. It's not fair to you, and it's certainly not fair to those who took their time to help you remove some ignorance. ! Moderator Note This thread is closed.

I obviously did a horrible job of explaining it if this is the impression I left you with. I described a "gravitational inward force" instead of just saying "gravity", to help with the concept of overcoming degeneracy and thermal pressures. Matter is (probably) compressed inside a BH because of the insanely curved spacetime past the EH. We feel curved spacetime as gravity. Imagine you're approaching a star 100 times the size of our sun in a spaceship. As you get nearer, your options for selecting your course become limited. There are certain paths that would inevitably lead you straight into the sun, because you have a limited amount of energy to change your course. Most of your options DON'T lead to the sun, and of course you would choose one of those if you want to live. Now imagine the sun you're approaching went supernova long ago, forming a black hole. Outside the EH, the gravity is still similar to the sun when it was in main sequence. You still have many options for paths your engines can take around the BH. As you cross the event horizon however, spacetime become so curved that your engines don't have the energy to move you anywhere except straight to the degenerate matter at the heart. Your options for course rapidly become very limited. You don't have the energy to escape that single path, nothing does, not even light. Normal dimensions are both compressed and stretched to the extreme, due to so much mass in so small an area.

The BB wasn't an explosion from a single point. It was an expansion of all the hot, dense matter and its evolution into a cooler, less dense state.

! Moderator Note Moved from Science Education to Engineering. First you need to establish that this phenomenon happens to more than just yourself. An experiment needs to be devised. Besides different brands and compositions, you also need to factor in the amount of hair present (and possibly length - does long armpit hair use less product than a short stubble?), as well as temperature and humidity conditions. Does the pressure used affect the wear, and do men and women use differing pressure when applying it? And as Bufofrog mentions, the shape of the armpit is also a factor. Why do you find this bizarre? As a guess, I think if you experience any unevenness in the application of a product like deodorant, it's most likely because the manufacturer receives no benefit from changing. If you're satisfied with the price, shelf life, and how the product takes care of the problem you bought it for, that's where the manufacturer is focusing their efforts. It could also be that the uneven wear makes you use the product faster (trying to even it out) and purchase more.

Black holes are formed when gravitational inward force overcomes both the thermal pressure outward and the degeneracy pressure keeping electrons and neutrons from compressing. Two neutron stars could also combine to continue degeneracy and become a black hole. And of course, the maths show us that the extreme curvature of spacetime past the EH is enough to cause matter to instantly degenerate. Philosophy is better suited to "why" questions, but science observes that this process where stars sometimes lose their balance of inward and outward pressures is what distributes heavy elements around the galaxies. The universe thrives on equilibrium, it would seem, and matter appears capable of stability in two heavily compressed states as well as at normal densities.

I think many people get the idea that the event horizon around a black hole is like an entrance, so they reason their must be an exit. The EH just marks the boundary where spacetime becomes overwhelmingly curved due to the mass of the former star core having overcome degeneration pressure to become so tiny and dense. Past the EH, there simply isn't a path in space or time that doesn't lead to the degenerate matter. Time isn't regressed, but the future of anything that crosses the EH becomes inevitable.

I would hope such a study would have a way to define "dissenting" in a meaningful way. Something I see all too often is one person making a misstatement (speaking too generally, or exaggerating, or using fallacious reasoning, etc), or being too superficial in a description. Then a second person corrects them, or goes into more detail, and gets marked as a dissenter. Sometimes being overly accurate and precise is a way to avoid giving tacit approval (gotta say something or it looks like you totally agree). Sometimes it's necessary. And sometimes it's not dissent so much as clarification. I think this is closer to what the OP is talking about. Sure, we're still overly tribal in our thinking, but I think it's the anonymity of the medium that's driving this behavior. Personally, I think our lust for extreme entertainment has generated this weird format where everything is boiled down to two sides screaming at each other from opposite sides of the room.