Phi for All

We can calculate the innermost stable circular orbit around a particular black hole.

! Moderator Note Moved to Physics.

We've never actually discussed it as staff before, but I know that the science is the only thing that matters here. Even if a member was told NOT to bring up a subject again, if they did so anyway BUT THEY IMMEDIATELY SHOWED SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE for their arguments, nobody on staff would insist the thread be closed on principle. Instead, we'd actually have some science to discuss meaningfully, evidence to weigh, reasoning to do. PrimalMinister, I think you're experiencing why a thorough study of science, including the underlying mathematics principles, is needed in order to form working hypotheses. You write like you think philosophy is science-lite, without the maths, but you actually have to study philosophy too in order to apply it. It's clear you've not understood much of physics, and therefore think it's wrong instead of difficult. You've started making up explanations based on limited study, filling in the gaps with guesswork that seems absolutely perfect, but only to you. You aren't doing science, and I think you're actually hampering your own ability to learn. Try leading with the evidence next time, and the members here will be able to better discuss your ideas with you.

I can't think of a thread where such a declaration wouldn't be off-topic. You can ignore what a specific person in a conversation about a subject says, but bringing it up that you're ignoring them is a change of subject.

Ignorance is easily treatable, but some willfully reject the cure. It's pointless wasting medicine on someone who spits it out. Ignoring them might be best for YOUR health. If you can't reason with them, whatever you do, don't join them!

! Moderator Note Tom Booth, I've hidden your two previous posts. We don't allow advertising for anything, even fundraising. Also, this isn't the place to air your gripes about other science discussion forums, or how you were treated elsewhere.

! Moderator Note NO. This is unacceptable. This is a discussion forum, and all discussion takes place here. Nobody should be forced to read handwriting, or contact you privately in order to participate. We have LaTex for maths, you can upload drawings, and you can type. Please learn to work within our system, and by our rules. If you think this is a bad forum, there are others that might favor your style. If you decide to post your idea (not a theory), please post in the Speculations section we provide for non-mainstream hypothesizing. You'll be asked to support your ideas with evidence and reasoned argument. Thanks for understanding. Thread closed.

Far from useless, I think you two may have saved me some jail time. I'll be repacking my suitcase for my next jaunt to the coasts.

Dental implants suggest that a suitable post can be attached to bone, and then you could attach something to the post, like they do with implanted crowns. The jawbone is designed for that kind of stress though. The skull is different, and I'd worry you were creating weakness where none should exist. Are you suggesting these horns be somehow grafted onto your skull, is that why you're growing them in a lab? Since you can't get "devil", what animal are you using for the stem cells? Is your devil going to look more goat than antelope? I would say "too many to count".

If he was ahead in the polls by as much as Biden, there would be no questioning the system, period. If it was a closer race, he'd only raise a little doubt about trusting the results. Now he's flat out claiming it's going to be wrong no matter what, so he must be expecting to lose. I'm betting he uses all that outrage to launch his new fascist focus news channel.

This is just more shitflooding. Sew doubts in order to eat away at consensus. Say unreasonable things to dumbfound your opponents, and claim everything they say is fake. He's simply corrupt, immoral, ignorant, and the worst person possible for the position. These are the tactics of corrupt and ruthless businessmen. We may not think much of politicians, but this is one thing they (normally) would never do in the US.

! Moderator Note We can test the parts of consciousness that are scientifically recognized. The parts you claim can't be tested are all the woo and made up garbage people claim as beliefs. You've had four pages of this speculation, and you've consistently moved more and more towards unsupported claims and preachy hand-waving. It's not science, it's not interesting, and it's a waste of discussion resources on a site like this. Do NOT bring this up again in any way, shape, or form. since you've shown you can't support the arguments without soapboxing.

! Moderator Note You aren't allowed to call the things you make up "facts". Do it again while you're discussing anything here and you'll be suspended. You might want to consider going to a less rigorous science discussion forum if you want claims like this to pass unchallenged. Thread closed.

No, it doesn't. Your god can't be observed (or chooses not to be?), so science has no way to measure it, or to test it, or to predict what it will do next based on past observations. If you can't use scientific methodology to arrive at reasoned conclusions about a phenomenon, then it's considered supernatural (outside nature). Many try to claim their god is nature itself to get around this, but the fact remains that beliefs based on trustworthy methodology aren't compatible with beliefs based on faith alone. By their very nature, the two contradict each other. This is wrong as well, for the reason stated above, but I especially wanted to point out that this is a dangerously misinformed thing to say when discussing religious topics. Especially when trying to mix faith-based beliefs with more trusted knowledge.

In a quest for scientific knowledge, this behavior actually works against you. We understand how emotional the subject is without the aggressive language. Any support we could give is only harmed by anger and denial, and I think you're smart enough to see that. That said, we can handle a bit of foul language as long as you stay civil overall. Our cells don't destroy each other really. The process you refer to is more like the maid who cleans up the house is getting old and sloppy, and he doesn't do as good a job as he used to. Telomerase is being looked into as a way to limit this sloppiness, and also keep bad cells from continued replication. Of course there are lots of folks working hard on prolonging life in our species, but there will always be a lot we don't know that hampers the explanations we have about various phenomena. Here's the abstract for one such study: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/87/12/884/958360 We don't have immortality yet (and may never, considering we have no clear examples of it in nature), but we've greatly increased life expectancy with the knowledge we've gained in the last couple of centuries. We can't make flying cars yet, but we're getting closer to regular cars that can drive themselves without everyone killing each other. I know this doesn't help much with your girl, but there will ALWAYS be a need for technology we don't have. The steam engine was discovered long before we had the matching technology to turn its efforts into usable work. Very sorry about your girl, and that science isn't more adaptive to our deepest needs, and especially yours.