Phi for All

5 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I've been sharing my framework and answering questions, but so far no one has pointed out any major flaws. They're mainly asking how specific things work or requesting evidence — which I welcome — but I'm specifically looking for clear critiques. If there’s something logically inconsistent, mathematically incorrect, or physically unjustified, please point it out directly.

Lack of evidence is a VERY clear critique. If your ideas are unsupported, then they're opinions. Hypotheses require a LOT of support before they can ever be thought of as theories.

2 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

It's his thread, not mine. I only opened it because he asked to to since I am a more well known forum member. You are directing your thoughts at a wrong person.

OK, so that's a bit unorthodox, and is part of what bothers me about this. If an idea is sound, why do you need "a more well known forum member" to pave the way for it? And not to be disrespectful, but you have less than 100 posts here. You're not that much more well known, so it seems even more like you have an agenda.

What needs to happen now is for anyone proposing this appeal to spell it out, tell us why it's so important, and to do so WITHOUT TELLING US TO CHECK THE LINKS. Members should be able to participate in discussion without going offsite or clicking links or watching videos. Forcing us to do so makes it seem like you benefit somehow from the views.

10 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

By argue i meant fighting over small things which are not related to topic.

iNow's comment seemed perfectly on topic. He was explaining a perspective on downvotes. I think you made the mistake of taking it as a personal attack, rather than an attempt to explain certain behavior.

We don't attack people here, we attack ideas. You are NOT your ideas.

1 hour ago, Dhillon1724X said:

The theory stands still and stronger now.

Moderator Note

This is an unsupported assertion. If you state something like this, we expect you to elaborate. NOBODY here is going to simply take your word that you make a major change to your idea that makes it stronger. Please explain your new position without making up new terms, and perhaps go back to answer unanswered questions from other members.

1 hour ago, Dhillon1724X said:

Why are you having problem,I dont like your tone.
I am not here to argue.

But it's true. People give a downvote for many reasons, including when they don't like someone's tone. It could be because you make an assertion without support, or that you keep using the word "theory" to mean "guess", or that you avoided a previous question posed to you that was important to the poster. So, again, who are you to say that reason is irrelevant or "nothing"?

And if you aren't here to argue, you're not here to do science. Arguments are the core of peer review, and while we're far from a formal process, we like to use the same successful methodology in our discussions.

4 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

I highly suggest everyone reads the content of the links included in the OP before posting: That's what @Michael Harrop expects everybody to do.

First link:

This all feels wrong. I understand getting behind an idea, but this seems like an agenda that's being pushed on us. Who cares what Michael expects everybody to do?

Seriously, this is a science discussion forum, and we tear EVERYTHING apart to get at the reasoning and meaning behind any concept. None of the comments have been off-topic, not a single one. And trying to claim the problem is our inability to understand so we must listen to Michael is loathsome to me. Make your case, spell it out, tell us what you want us to know and we can weigh in with our own knowledge, but you started off on the wrong foot by putting Michael on some kind of pedestal. I would love to learn something from this but it feels like a setup to sell a book or some gut-related products.

42 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Thank you

I still can't change it as there is no option for me too

The others such as my email and password can be changed

Hmmmm. They give mods the power to edit profiles, including pictures, in case something inappropriate is put there, but not the username.

I suppose you're going to have to ask an Admin. This better be a really good name change for you to risk their ire (I'm kidding, nice folks, just haven't done this with the new software). Here's the link for messaging: https://scienceforums.net/staff/

Dave and Cap'n Refsmmat have been active lately, I'd start with one of them. Good luck, member formerly known as Sohan Lalwani!

On 7/20/2025 at 5:48 AM, Dhillon1724X said:

This theory is now Forged into Quantum Chorton Framework(QCF).

Moderator Note

I don't know what this means, but it sounds like this thread needs to be closed so members can discuss your new... forgery?

Click on your icon at top right and choose Account Settings. On the left menu, choose Display Name. I think you get a certain number of changes (3?).

4 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

I second @Michael Harrop, it's better to start a second, more general purpose thread about the gut microbiome.

EDIT: Done: https://scienceforums.net/topic/136452-gut-microbiome-general-discussion-thread/

Moderator Note

Discussion needs to be focused. We don't want a bunch of threads on this until there is a reason for it. Stay in this thread, the other one is closed.

We can't require something like that from a volunteer staff. People, including REs, get busy with other projects or study or life in general, or they just need a break. We wish Mordred well, and hope he can join us in discussion soon.

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

Or if two accounts are registered from the same IP address within 24 hours.

It’s the cheese dust getting all over the keyboard and into the cracks.

(I use chopsticks on the occasions I eat Jax/Cheetos. Not kidding. Saw it on Criminal Minds last year. Genius.)

They work on chocolate biscuits too! I love anything that reduces my compulsive thumb and forefinger rinsing.

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

I think you guys do a great job and definitely deserve a chocolate biscuit.

Excellent, thanks! We stopped buying Cheese Nips since orange cheesiness got such a bad name, and we need a new staff snack.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

Get an AI on the job.

😄😁☹️

We shouldn't hire the ratcatcher who snuck all these rats in here in the first place.

Even something super simple, like spamban if links are posted in the first 5 posts would help a LOT. All of these are so obvious, it's hard to believe the software can't figure them out.

24 minutes ago, waitaminute said:

it's currently still in the construction stage, right now.

I already hate having to watch a YT video. We're a discussion forum, and I can't quote anything from it. I like reading, it keeps YOU honest. Videos make me think you're trying to earn views or you want to slip something shady past me.

I also distrust your AI style. Again, it makes me think you're trying to pull a fast one with slick graphics and no meat whatsoever. Oh, and the model will follow later, always. You should also be drawing your own conclusions if you really understand it, not letting the language model interpret it's own mistakes.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I’m chary of the idea of insisting on maths, though. That works for a mathematical science like physics but would not be appropriate for biology or geology, say.

As swansont said, where appropriate the math should be an easy way to support an idea, but there are other ways to model. Unfortunately, a lot of folks want us exposed to the whole idea at once so we take it in the way they imagine it. They don't like it when we take small bites and chew thoughtfully before replying, but that's really the only intellectually honest way to discuss ideas like this. Nobody wants to continue to scale the wall of text once they find flaws with the first few bricks. Fix these, please, and then we'll continue, thanks very much.

And if they can't provide these basics, they at least need to listen to criticism. Most of the references cited are bogus in my experience. If the poster hasn't bothered to check them, I think that's posting in bad faith. I've been rather stunned that nobody bothers to see if the LLM cited anything meaningful about their idea. The OPs should be excited to read mainstream material that supports them, but few seem to know what's in those citations.

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

Seems to have happened again with all these questions and contact info posts.

its probably a lot to ask of moderators, but maybe new members should not be allowed to post until they reply to a PM from Moderation after submitting an inquiry to join.
It would crack down on these 'drive-by' spam posts.

Might take less time to do this than banning a bunch of accounts.

How can you tell a plumber from a chemist? Ask them to pronounce the word "unionized".

On 7/10/2025 at 12:16 AM, LuckyR said:

Thank you for your thoughtful addition to the discussion, your comment reveals much.

You're so welcome, I hope it revealed to you my attitudes towards generalizing me and deciding for me what I like.

18 minutes ago, m_m said:

And "we are simulated" as well.

I wanted you to answer a simple question I've posed. Your Truth isn't mine, so how can it be The Truth? You chose to post this instead, for which I have no reference or clarity. I don't think you argue in good faith, I think you ignore the tough questions. You have the day you deserve.

2 minutes ago, m_m said:

But I don't impose on you the Truth (I hope I don't). It's your choice, you are free to have your beliefs. I want to bring a quote of Paul the Apostle, for me it was like thunder "Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves."

You don't think Truth as an ideal is imposing a condition?! I suggest you look the word up, in a relevant context.

21 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Yes, but I think they have far more effective ways of redistribution to the top. Especially as they get to make all the rules. I have doubt that the deportations will have any impact on that.

Redistribution assumes there are assets to be redistributed. That was sort of guaranteed when people earned a wage that covered more than the cost of living. It behooved the extremist capitalist to keep the worker/consumer relationship healthy so they could count on steady income from the working and middle classes.

Now though, they don't seem to care much about that. Fuck consumer protections, force the middle and working classes to pay more in taxes while LOUDLY cheering to pay nothing yourself, and take away healthcare people already considered inadequate.

I think the deportations are just another way to signal that they've militarized these capitalist efforts. They don't give a shit if you're brown or black, but their base does, and they're using that to mimic WWII Germany. It shouldn't be this hard to convince anybody that deporting central and south Americans is just the start, and those with wealth to confiscate who aren't willing to pay to stay will be next, especially if they don't get a chance to pay for due process. Jesus, TFG is talking about deporting citizens, not just those with no papers. Established citizens with generations of wealth, you don't see that as a grab for assets? It seems like another tool to me, perhaps one that will work better than those "far more effective" ways they've used before.

Edit to add: Ah, the Secretary of Agriculture just figured it all out! The folks on Medicaid who need to show 80 hours of work are now expected to pick the crops going unpicked by deported migrant workers. Brooke Rollins is so happy the workforce will be 100% American!

2 minutes ago, m_m said:

Because the Truth is the foundation you can lean on.

It's not though. Your Truth isn't mine, so how can it be The Truth? I can bring in three other religion proponents who would all disagree with both of us.

Is it true that the sun rises in the East every morning? No, not for some. Is it true that birds have wings that let them fly? Again, that's not true for some birds.

I think any Truth you could tell me would involve you knowing something about your unknowable god. Zealotry ignores the ironic.

2 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I'm thinking, with regard to creating chaos, that oligarchs try to aim for a kind of Goldilocks zone, where people have enough anxiety to be manipulated but not so much that they withdraw from consumerist comforts and turn their wrath on the oligarchs and the politicians who serve them. When you turn the 99% (in David Graeber's meaning) into frightened peasants, you can get peasant uprisings. Like the Jacquerie in France, peasants have a way of noticing when the leadership is asking them to defend failed and corrupt institutions.

Maybe once, but it seems the gloves are off. We have masked men in military gear with questionable authority harassing ordinary citizens. We have politicians willing to grin in photo ops under headlines like "17 Million Americans Lose Health Insurance!" They behave as if the midterms won't take place. I think we may have reached some magic number only the oligarchs know and now they don't need consumers as long as they can grab up everything the consumers own. I'm still reeling from the idea that a lot of these corporations don't need people of color to make their sales forecasts, so they dropped their DEI programs VERY publicly.

Then again, I thought it was good practice to pay people well for the job they do, so they can participate in their own economy, and everybody is happy. I didn't count on the fact that unhappy people work for less pay, don't complain as much, and spend even more money than happy people.