Phi for All

I've had great success with avoiding products that claim to boost brain power. Each time I remember not to buy them, my intelligence is measurably higher.

Perhaps you could do yourself a favor and use better sources when it comes to anything concerning science. Did you read all the corrections to the original they had to make? Protip: Accuracy and rigor should be the focus when reading about science, so don't choose popular entertainment formats.

I always wondered how my friend rotated her "stock". It seemed like such a pain that when I decided to buy a deep freeze, I went with an upright rather than a chest model. Saves space and it's much easier to pull from, but I doubt I can store as much as you can.

I think it's easier to be happy when we realize who we are is not about how we look, or how our bodies work, or the things we possess. It's also easier to say that than to stop blaming a perceived lack for our unhappiness. This modern society places too much emphasis on competition, where it's easy to judge others based on their bodies, when our real strengths lie in cooperation, where none of that really matters.

I don't think it's a very strong argument to claim other things are more important. There are always enough of us and enough resources to do many things at once, and you never know where important discoveries will come from, but it's a good bet they'll come from those with the fullest understanding of the subject. The government funds a great deal of research that isn't profitable, but becomes the cornerstone for other research that is. Perhaps a .gov search would help.

I think that makes me Dr Jellyfinger. In the future, I'll try not to use the whole fist.

I didn't say anything about balding men. I said some studies show men who were completely bald were perceived as bigger, stronger, smarter, and more confident. Personally, I think the perception of confidence is an amalgam of the other three attributes anyway. Otherwise, how does a person with less of anything seem bigger? What are the closest studies you've found? I too feel an urge to put the word "cure" in quotes, mostly because I don't consider MPB a disease. I also realize how easy it is for hair-headed me to downplay the importance of having it. Why aren't you studying biochemistry formally if it's this important to you? Even if you want to make this available to everyone free of charge, and don't want to study biochem, you should be studying business or law to ensure your wishes are carried out. Being young and ambitious makes you seem bigger, stronger, and smarter to me. You've been working on a cure for male pattern baldness since you were 13? It's a good reason to want to help. Have you contacted a university or private lab to see if there might be a place for you on their research team? They might have the carrier method you're looking for.

What if the women of the time had a more practical focus on this life rather than the afterlife? Perhaps they were grateful the guy's work on their man-caves kept them out from underfoot?

! Moderator Note Discussion has that advantage, certainly, but only when one listens rather than lectures. Unfortunately, you aren't discussing this, so nobody is learning anything they really need to. Discussion would mean you actually incorporate comments from others in your replies. Instead we see an outlined lecture series you obviously don't want any critique on. Please go elsewhere to do this kind of blogging. Nobody is interested in that format here. This is a science discussion forum. Thread closed.

What if this is an evolutionary advantage? We don't need the hair for warmth much anymore. It takes up resources to maintain. It can be a hygiene issue. Some studies show men who're completely bald are seen as stronger, bigger, more confident, and more intelligent, so a lack is not necessarily a selection issue. I'm curious why you don't think any of this is being done already, other than the fact that there's no viable product. Curing male pattern baldness would be the greatest discovery since instant erections. Maybe even more popular, since the results are more visible.

I think many people try to stitch together the random pieces they hear from folks like Lazar. And when you try to make sense out of something that way, you fill in the gaps with what you know, so it comes off sounding pretty feasible. You "figure it out" and it seems to make sense, but only to you. I actually think this is part of why people who should know better justify some of the claims Trump makes. They hear his hopscotch talk, fill in the weird gaps with what they know, and suddenly they think he may know what he's talking about.

I think you misunderstand skepticism. It's not a fence one sits on constantly. It's a brief stopover on the way to deciding how trustworthy a specific bit of information is. I don't approach everything skeptically, but extraordinary claims need to be investigated. That kind of skepticism drives a person to dig as deeply as they need to to satisfy "the nature of knowledge". My outlook is that people like Lazar will NEVER offer meaningful contributions to science by starting with flawed premises, so I'm not rejecting his ideas simply because they involve aliens. Joseph Newman initially persuaded many folks that he'd made a breakthrough in physics by combining a gyroscope with an inductor in a novel way. His claims of overunity through the manipulation of an abnormally large EM field sounded like just the kind of serendipitous accident all inventors dream of, and his carny pitch was perfect until the evidence failed to hold up. Even he couldn't recreate his original design, and he claimed he couldn't let anyone examine it because the USPTO denied his patent. He had an answer for everything except his poor methodology and his basic misunderstandings. He drove a car with his engine in it around stadiums full of people, but in the end none of that amounted to an ounce of real evidence.

Nothing is ever "definitively provable", not in science, but that's not the point. The claim, anyone's claim, has to have something reasonably persuasive about it to start with, and also avoid basic mistakes along the way. A lack of reason coupled with misunderstandings and a lack of supporting evidence means I can safely ignore this, and not have to consider it just because it's not necessarily untrue.

Do you have any current funding figures to share? Otherwise, aren't you assuming funding is not enough based on the fact that you still age? Why assume there's not enough interest in a "fountain of youth"? Also, I don't see how anyone could give you any accurate timeline based on "Let's spend $1000/person on this". I would imagine funding is not the biggest problem with extending life.

! Moderator Note I'm ordering a closure on this one for sanitary reasons, because it's starting to smell funny.