Phi for All

! Moderator Note Before you start any more new threads, there are replies to your other thread that have no response from you. This is a science DISCUSSION forum.

If I put my bowling ball in its bag, I still call it my bowling ball, but I need more volume to store it. But then it would be fairly easy to make a formula that anticipates how much more volume a bra adds to a breast, so perhaps that's not what the OP meant.

Does it change your idea to know that the above isn't true? Science doesn't say "there was no before". Science says "we don't know what there was before, if anything". There's a difference.

! Moderator Note Opening new threads without responding to replies in your old threads makes it look like you have an agenda that isn't discussion based. Don't do this again, and please stop pushing the drivel of this author. It's not science, it's not philosophy. It's nonsense.

Generations of Americans were abused using the Christian Bible to justify the acts of morally bankrupt men. It's become a hallmark that lets them embrace their inner sinner and get away with both sanctimony and sexual abuse. When I think about most church leadership in this country, I picture a corrupt, hypocritical man exhorting everyone else to be better. So actually, I think the Bible is the perfect weapon for TFG to wield. He's a rapist, lots of rape justified by churches in the US, and there's always a way to support the patriarchy if you use the Bible. And this Bible has extra irony built right in by including a copy of the Constitution, knowing the purchaser will never make it to the part about separation of Church and State!

! Moderator Note We're a science discussion site. Advertising other sites isn't allowed here. You're welcome to stay and discuss your interests here, but keep in mind it's not a pulpit or your blog, it's a science discussion site. Nobody is here to be preached at, but we love talking about interesting topics. We discuss science here.

Only in crackpot land. Stop citing Dean to support Dean. If you want to use his arguments, make them clearly and reasonably and support them with real evidence, not hand-waving. This is a science discussion forum.

Ironic, considering "them" was originally used properly in context until you broadened the definition to include the us/them divide, then denounced it as divisive. It's insidious how you weaponized a pronoun.

I feel your pain. Perhaps you should stop dating tennis players, Moon. Love means nothing to them.

It's "deaf". The brain has a hard time adapting to death.

That reminds me, are you interested in joining my professional hide-and-seek team. Turns out, good players are hard to find.

That sounds like my wife. The other day she told me she doesn't understand cloning. I said, "That makes two of us!"

I got a chilly reception for my idea for designer underwear for scientists: Kelvin Klein.

It's obviously not you. Scientists have methodologies to double check their information so they aren't so misinformed. Unfortunately, you've chosen to denigrate something you have no clue about. That's a waste of a good mind. Can you discuss some of these ideas, or are you just here to preach?

! Moderator Note This is NOT a blog. It's a science DISCUSSION forum. You need to amend your style if you want to stay here. Less preaching, less soapboxing, less lecturing. Try sitting at the table having a conversation aimed at persuading us rather than jumping up on the table and trying to shout us into submission. Also, please focus on a particular topic rather than trying to include "a little lesson on everything". It will make replies easier and help keep the thread moving along.

! Moderator Note We need more focus on the science, and less on disrespect.

! Moderator Note Lose the personal attacks, please.

Please learn what logic is, and not from Mr Spock. Formal logic is an a priori study for maths and philosophy, not an empirical study for science. The word you're looking for is "reason".

Do you think a decent fraction of that knowledge could be presented orally? Do you think some textbooks aren't dry and the readers have context, or do you insist on using such a broad brush? Basically I disagree. I think understanding scales more easily the more knowledge you have to work with. The amount of print directly affects the probability that understanding can happen. Do you honestly think reducing the printed word will increase understanding? Will understanding go to 100% if print goes to 0%? Perhaps you can convince me that I should wait until I meet you face-to-face to gain any knowledge or understanding from you.

And now you've made several words meaningless. Conscious, breathing, alive. If stones breathe, now words like lungs, aspiration, and inspiration are worthless, as are reproduction, growth, and adaptation. This is a classic specious argument. It sounds wonderful until you realize just how impractical and misleading it would be.

But oral traditions didn't guarantee understanding. We've seen that rote memorization isn't the best strategy if you want folks to "get it". But it requires knowledge in the first place, and may not happen even if knowledge is bestowed. There is no understanding without the knowledge underpinning it.

! Moderator Note Best of luck with that. We're a science discussion forum, and won't be participating in your project. Don't post any more links to it, it's against our rules.

Not sure you're doing anything more than thoroughly saturating the fibers before you wash the garment, if it's only water and for that long. If the clothes are heavily dirty, I'd pre-soak using some kind of detergent, but only for about half an hour. That's plenty of time for the surfactants to break up any oils or ground-in grime, and then hold on to both water and dirt so it's washed away. Modern detergents are designed to work with fibers and their colors. Why are you listening to anyone who just tells you it's "not good to do that" without explaining why?

! Moderator Note Less opinion and belief, and more evidence, please. So far, you're just saying "This makes more sense to me than the Standard Model". And please also define what you mean by "different state of consciousness", preferably using mainstream science.

! Moderator Note Please stop making these extraordinary claims without supporting them. Of course we want evidence of these claims no matter what section it happens to be in, it's a SCIENCE DISCUSSION forum. Your vague generalities aren't appreciated at all. If you have evidence to support ANY of your wild claims, post it. You're done being lazy here.