Phi for All

Your hair should be OK, but I think you have a drinking problem.

! Moderator Note Thread closed.

! Moderator Note I tried to keep the thread on topic, but even the OP is ranting about other things. Thread closed, don't EVER do something like this again here, or you'll be suspended.

! Moderator Note Posts rehashing a closed thread have been hidden. Let's keep this on-topic, folks.

I think the majority of humans react emotionally first, then intellectualize the reaction later. For those who study STEM subjects, there's a focus on thinking first that may come off as non-empathetic, cold, and narrow-minded. Add to that, when people react emotionally, they're looking for a reciprocal emotion, not a reasoned explanation. The deck is stacked against reason and rational thought when a person begins with heavy emotions. One of the hardest social skills to learn is that sometimes people like to lie to themselves, and they don't appreciate anyone pointing out how irrational they're being, so sometimes it's best to smile and say nothing. If we're honest, does that sound like any STEM enthusiasts you know? Staying quiet when someone is wrong about something that matters? I don't think so.

Then it isn't part of the natural world science is interested in. If it can't be observed in some fashion, it's considered super-natural. You may have started at the top, but you missed many things along the way, which are now being pointed out to you. Dark energy density remains constant as the universe expands, while matter and radiation become less dense during expansion. Again, this suggests that while space can contain normal matter and energy, dark energy seems to behave as an inherent part of space. It isn't diluted as the volume increases.

This is the big problem not starting out with the most widely accepted explanations as your guide. You've filled in gaps in your knowledge with things you've made up to fit the problem PERFECTLY. It makes so much sense to you because you used exactly what you knew at the time, and it appears to cover the parts you don't understand so well that there's no way it could seem wrong. It's like you made the pieces of the jigsaw fit without looking at the picture it's supposed to depict. What you have doesn't match with what we observe in nature.

The true test to see if you're using Designer Science? When you can't explain the parts you filled in yourself. We see this all the time. "I know it proves my point, but I'm just not good at explaining it. If I could do the maths involved, you'd see I'm right!" I think the numerology crap makes these folks think they're doing the math. It somehow seems less like cherry-picking when it involves numbers.

Do you know why? Because you only worked with what you knew, which was limited, and you filled the rest in so it made perfect sense (but only to you). Earlier in this same post, you said: Asserting that space is made of waves is completely changing the definition. You can see that, right? But that's not what we observe. Dark energy is called dark because it doesn't interact electromagnetically. The big question is, given the new information you have now regarding where your idea conflicts with observation, what aspects will you change? I personally feel your misconceptions about what space is is at the heart of the problem.

I think the obvious compromise here is to start marking some threads but leave them open. If they attract bad actors, or other negative aspect arises because they're still open, we can close them as necessary.

Similar to the phenomenon we see here when someone fills the gaps in their knowledge with junk they've made up. Custom science designed with ad hoc methodology is an addiction for some.

As zapatos points out, most threads benefit from different perspectives applied to an explanation, and the discussions are better with more input. When a thread asks a question and gets a definitive answer we can mark [YES!], [NO!], or [SOLVED], it's not only a flag for students looking for solid answers, it can be a magnet for crackpots/deniers. These folks reply to these marked threads with pet theories that blatantly show they haven't read our [SOLVED] thread at all, and I can't see how those posts add to a discussion we consider [SOLVED]. These posts are usually split off to their own threads, so closure saves some housekeeping. Closing threads should only seem excessive if done far too early, or if a staff member was abusing member/mod status, or if there were more than one reasonable explanation to consider. If the OP asks and is answered and considers the question solved, would you still consider it excessive to mark it that way and close it? If someone is refuting the explanations offered in a mainstream thread, especially one marked [SOLVED], whether they're right or wrong, they're most likely off-topic for that thread if they have a different explanation. They should be opening their own thread (and if they support it very well, we'll mark that one too). If we left the marked ones open, I suppose people could reply with insights on how the answer helped them understand the problem. In anticipating the kind of reply to an open thread marked [SOLVED], am I missing something else beneficial?

We can't know anything trustworthy from this time, but we do know that the kind of extreme densities involved also involve extreme heat. IIRC, light didn't have enough room to travel until about 400,000 years after expansion began. Mordred can confirm.

! Moderator Note Closing this thread since the OP has since opened a second one on the same topic.

Isn't this a fallacious argument, claiming what he said isn't appropriate because HE said it? It's Hitchens, not Hitler. I think having a mission statement focusing on reasoned openmindedness from a man who was sometimes considered over-passionate about science is appropriate here. Besides, we can include something to the effect that, if you think we chose Hitchens to offend you, you're all wrong. We can use emojis to further demonstrate our non-offensiveness .