Jump to content

Phi for All

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Phi for All last won the day on February 17

Phi for All had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5887 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

101230 profile views
  1. ! Moderator Note It's the only way where your assumptions are tested against experiment and observation in a methodical way. You assume your idea is consistent with many current approaches, yet you admit it's not correct. There's really no other way to keep you honest in your intellectual pursuit here. There are plenty of sites that will encourage WAGs and conclusion-jumping, but we aren't one of them. Rigor isn't impossible, just... hard. Thread closed.
  2. ! Moderator Note This has become agonizingly apparent. I told you we don't stoop to the intellectual dishonesty of conspiracy here at SFN. If you open any more rigor-free, unreasoned, bad-faith crap threads like this again, you're going to be instantly booted. I'm going to ask that you be put on a list of people who are pre-approved for banning on their next infraction. This is a science discussion forum. Conspiracy is expecting us to do all the digging into your mere suspicions while you do nothing but question. It's not going to happen here with you anymore.
  3. ! Moderator Note Please stay in your own thread in Speculations regarding your concept, and don't make any others about it until you've shown some meaningful support.
  4. I read this morning that the CPAC theme for this year is "America Uncanceled", where they'll be addressing exactly this from a conservative perspective. Unfortunately, one of their guest speakers recently made an anti-Semitic remark in public, so they had to cancel him.
  5. This is called "preaching" or "soapboxing", where you make a statement ("Your model says the universe came from nothing"), it gets refuted ("No, the LCDM model doesn't say ANYTHING about where the universe came from, it starts just after it began expanding"), and then you just keep repeating the wrong statement again over and over ("Yours has the former"). We can't discuss this if you're going to soapbox about it. Take your fingers out of your ears, please.
  6. I thought so too. They even have the international symbol of a couple in bed under the covers:
  7. I read that as Marketing 101-speak for "This will be expensive". Create the problem, highlight the problem, offer the only solution to the problem, and make sure your market looks beyond price to see value. I think the US market isn't ready for something called a "Walker's Casket". Too many seasons of zombie series on TV that refer to "walkers". Maybe instead of preserving memories, a Walker's Casket could guarantee that if the zombie apocalypse happens, nobody is getting out of one of these coffins?
  8. I think we've already done better than simply leaving our bones for the future to find. Genetic mapping information for our entire genome has been available for many years, so the present plans are quite an improvement over excavating bones from the ground. I'm also very skeptical about the market for burial caskets. Many cultures already cremate their dead, and there are many environmental pressures to minimize the space we use for memorials.
  9. ! Moderator Note If you can't support the assertions in this thread, please don't start another on the same lines. Keep it all here, please.
  10. You're just being asked to show how your concept works in the case of say, diffraction, which may or may not show where the concept fails. That's not a predisposition to not accept something, it's more like cross-checking yourself, or using dimensional analysis on your equations. If it doesn't fail, that's a hurdle cleared, right?
  11. ! Moderator Note You can discuss the science here, but please avoid trying to advertise for business partners, or you'll be breaking our rules.
  12. ! Moderator Note If you continue to use this conspiracy style of questioning, I'm going to shut this down. Why would anyone want to discuss this with you if you keep dodging and hinting at something you can't support? It's not a style that works well in discussion with others. You're simply calling something into question rather than actually trying to determine an explanation.
  13. You didn't do anything in the past that changed your normal growth. But the past is another good example of something you can't change.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.