Phi for All

"There is no cannibalism in the British navy, absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount." -- Graham Chapman It's amazing that studying physics can make one an expert in biology and climate science too! Mainly, I dislike the casual way he makes claims, like in 100 years we'll be able to harness all the energy output of the planet. Real scientists don't need to be vividly misleading.

This is another strawman argument, masquerading as a tantrum. Nobody said you were entirely wrong. Nobody said there is no bias in science. It's just not the major problem you made it seem to be, and we're adapting to new worldviews just fine, thanks.

Classical physics was NOT replaced by anything, that's not the way to think about it. As you say, it's not wrong, it still works where it's applicable (which isn't the subatomic world). It's not though. It's often exaggerated or implies things the actual scientists never implied. It's inherently biased regarding a methodology that strives to remove bias. Popular science articles are meant to interest the reader who isn't jazzed enough by the nuts and bolts of science. What YOU are forgetting is we have methodology that includes peer discussion and review designed to strip away that baggage and explain a phenomenon objectively. YOU might forget out of habit, YOU might still carry baggage when you interpret new knowledge, but the scientific community does NOT. There are too many of them and the methods they use are strong. I think you're projecting your own ignorance onto the situation, which is easy to do when you you're not involved on a daily basis. I'm not a working scientist myself, but many members here are, and they're fantastic resources for filling in the gaps I have in my knowledge. Also, nobody is "affirming that science is pure". You made that up.

I thought it was clear. "What do you wish to discuss?" is pretty clear. Are you trying to sell your robotic arm to us, or are you interested in the processes you've encountered, or do you want to talk about new behaviors in interfaces? Your OP was anything but clear about what you wish to discuss.

Without downloading anything, I'm struck by the obvious, that you think a thesis and a theory are the same thing. You do NOT have a theory, not unless your paper has a lot of supportive evidence, or a mathematical model, or details on all the experiments you've run on various phenomena to test your explanations. Do we want "fresh insights into the fabric of reality", or is that particular pop-sci phraseology inherently stale? I've seen an awful lot of people thrown off by the whole "fabric" argument when it comes to space or reality. The whole tone seems very popular-science oriented. Did you study mainstream physics before you came up with this? Most of the folks who come here wanting to overturn Relativity or whatever haven't really studied the theories, and it becomes really obvious by the way they talk about information, time dilation, and entanglement. I'd suggest you paste the first part of your paper here so we can check it out and move on to the next if it looks good.

You call them "cultural" aspects, but other animals do have them. Is there much difference between lipstick and some of the stuff crabs and birds and insects decorate themselves with? I also disagree that gender roles have become "confused". I think they've changed and adapted the way animals are supposed to. Our society needs to move past the horrible Abrahamic patriarchy that continues to stifle so many intellectual and creative pursuits. I think the answer has always been to cooperate more with each other in every role, and compete less amongst ourselves overall. That should go double for how men and women work together. Having both masculine and feminine perspectives to draw from seems like brainy, human behavior.

! Moderator Note This isn't philosophy. If you think you can support your idea scientifically, I can move this to Speculations, but your premise is already over-generalized (brain = electronic device) and easy to poke holes in (chemical synapses have gaps that electric wiring doesn't).

! Moderator Note This isn't a section for "notions". This is a mainstream science section. If you have evidence to support this notion, or a way to test your hypothesis, I can move this to Speculations, otherwise it's just a wild guess.

https://uinterview.com/news/trumps-fundraising-agreement-with-rnc-allows-donations-to-cover-his-legal-bills-despite-concern-hes-using-party-as-a-piggy-bank/ Looks like Republicans all down the line will be cash starved due to TFG's legal bills. The argument that the money will be used to fight "the illegal witch hunts" continues to work. The RNC is now funding TFG first, then the Save America PAC, and finally the RNC and the rest of the Republicans running for office. When the campaign installed its own people, including daughter-in-law Lara TFG, they fired a lot of folks and invited the rest to reapply, and many didn't. The RNC is supposedly dangerously understaffed going into a presidential election. And, of course, if TFG is convicted of any of the many charges against him, he may not even be able to vote for himself.

#5 -- Einstein developed a theory about space. It was about time, too!

You slippery types know the drill and rig the system so it pans out well for you. It's a viscous cycle!

It's disturbing that scientists have been accumulating human knowledge for quite some time now, but you refuse to take advantage of that, and prefer filling the gaps in your own knowledge with guesswork and jumped-to conclusions.

I'm so sorry for your loss. Just a couple of years of formal, mainstream study and you wouldn't have to make things up to fit the gaps in your knowledge. We can help if you're willing to listen. Not sure what to do with the "Creator" issue, but I would ask that you leave it out of this discussion if possible. Much like infinities, all-powerful entities tend to remove our ability to measure accurately.

! Moderator Note Our rules require discussion stays here, and you can't require people click links or go offsite in order to participate. We don't allow commercial advertising here.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations.

Why do you think this means we aren't good at poking holes in established theories? And if we aren't coming up with fundamentally new principles in molecular biology, can you show evidence that it's because we aren't good at poking holes in established theories? Maybe science is just not good at jumping to conclusions as fast as some would like.

This is completely wrong. Established models are tested EVERY DAY in the course of their use. It's not that we're bad at poking holes in established models, it's that the established models are established because we can't falsify them. No place to poke, which means it's our best current explanation until someone using it finds a flaw. Your argument is assuming that once a model is "established", we never test it again. That's absurd.

Liquid hydrogen made from coal tars or gasoline? Are they using fuel cells to power the buses? They tried that here under Bush II, with cells that used petroleum for the hydrogen. It was about as efficient as our burning ethanol from corn to fuel our cars. Have they come up with a way to make H fuels not so dirty? Iirc, it used more gasoline than just burning gasoline.

It seemed to me that what Sensei "was getting at" is that swansont and Musk both work for the government and are "self-made men". If you want that definition to stand, you're welcome to it. It seems worthless to me as an argument about billionaires, almost as worthless as continuing to nitpick about it. Thanks for the input though.

I don't know anything about that. I was responding to the post where you conflated the financial aid Elon Musk got from the government with swansont's government salary. It was wrong when you said it, it's still wrong, and it really has nothing to do with how you define "self-made". It's about the difference between getting paid by an employer and getting financial incentives, tax breaks, and infrastructure help from a government entity. I don't think you can defend this point, and I was really hoping you could admit you had this part wrong so we can move on to other areas in this discussion. This is NOT semantics, and it's not a translation error. Being hired to work for the government is different from being awarded government contracts, subsidies, and tax incentives. Does that make sense?

Or you were simply wrong to conflate a private salary from the government with subsidies, tax breaks, and other economic incentives Elon Musk got from the government. I'm going to go with that rather than chase this red herring.

Or in neighborhoods that don't necessarily reflect their income. I read The Millionaire Next Door quite a while back, and the folks they talked about were as close to self made as I can imagine. They lived in modest homes in modest neighborhoods, bought clothes on sale off the rack, drank beer instead of champagne, and basically avoided most of the extravagant behavior many wealthy folks indulge in. But most of the folks in that book were worth between a few million up to thirty or forty million iirc, nowhere near billionaire status.

Not sure what you mean by "proper knowledge", but it's not disrespectful to correct someone's mistakes. It's what scientists do. You can't build anything good if the foundation isn't right. You talk as if your book is correct, but we've seen that you're mistaken about quite a few things. No. Experiment is one of the backbones of proper methodology. You experiment and test your hypothesis to see if it holds up, long before anybody starts to call it a theory. Mistakes have been pointed out. Dr Swanson is trying to help. I think your work needs more work before it's shared with anyone, much less swansont's old work buddies.

! Moderator Note Your idea hasn't been discussed enough in Speculations to merit a recommendation in Book Talk, which is for mainstream science books. Please continue the conversation in your thread in Speculations.

! Moderator Note And the place to talk about that is in its own thread in Speculations, not in someone else's speculative thread.