Phi for All

Evomumbojumbo has been banned for bad faith arguments, soapboxing, and a pattern of ignoring mainstream replies to creationist arguments. Nobody has time to waste trying to diminish ignorance in a mind that's closed to such efforts.

! Moderator Note Actually, you started getting reported the minute you started side-stepping mainstream replies. Nobody wants to waste time on these same tired waffles, but you were at least civil about it, so the mods actually protected you from getting the boot earlier. We'll say bye bye and let you bow out gracefully now that your arguments are falling apart. Please remember to remove the refuted parts of your argument from future discussions, at other science discussion forums.

I think a better setup is to have the gents talking about forgetfulness. The first one mentions forgetting an anniversary, the second one tells him about a memory course he took that uses word association to help you remember things. "What was the name of the course?" the first one asks. The second one thought and thought and finally said, "What's the name of that flower with the thorns?" Etc, etc, etc. Heaven's guardian is forgetting his Grimms'. "...a skin as white as snow, lips as red as blood, and hair as black as ebony". St Finger should have wagged his peter at her and denied her admittance.

! Moderator Note And many will never know because they approved the rule that requires you to paste your information here or give us an overview. When you're ready to comply, please open another thread.

! Moderator Note I asked you to follow the rules and give an overview of your concept so people don't have to click your links or open your documents. Or there's no reason why you can't copy/paste the whole thing right here so people can participate more easily.

It's pretty common for people using faith to believe to torture definitions of scientific studies they don't agree with. You start with the assumption that your religious beliefs are correct, and then redefine the science. Science, OTOH, looks at the evidence and formulates explanations based on reason, so what we believe is much more trustworthy.

! Moderator Note Identical topics merged. Please give us an overview, since members must be able to participate without downloading anything or leaving the site. Please explain how you've addressed the previous concerns.

I typically have a tab open to the forums home page to show me who's online, major topics, and status updates. I have a second tab open to Unread Content, and rarely look at All Activity, but lately I'm reading more and not posting as much.

I think All Activity is reporting where you post, so eventually it will stop loading threads you aren't active in anymore.

Exploration by civilized societies has almost always begun with a national effort to pave the way, followed by private enterprise once the paths have been established. Most of the interactions with space outside satellite orbits these days are still done by country-financed agencies (NASA, ESA, Roscosmos, JAXA, to name a few). You should be focusing on the political changes necessary to nationalize the construction of infrastructure off planet. IOW, set up the harvesting of asteroids to mine metals for use in other outer space ventures without trying to make a profit and minimize the costs. Focus on building rather than making money, so that we pave the way for money-making ventures. I would recommend starting with a global solar grid that everyone can use for cheap electricity, to show the world how well some surgically applied socialism could work.

! Moderator Note Moved to The Lounge.

You don't need to include everything when you claim the list is "pretty all-encompassing". It's not, btw. Word games aren't the equal of reasoning. And I didn't say your post was worthless, just the list. It would still be more reasonable for you to establish your claims about the "human value system" before you start listing what people value.

It does NOT go both ways. You made an extraordinary claim ("children are much more malicious and all around disgusting than adults") that needs extraordinary support. Or you could do the intellectually honest thing and concede that perhaps you over-generalized in your attempts to build your argument.

Probably billions of important things, which makes this list worthless. Whoa there, cart before the horse. You need to establish the latter before claiming the former. You should start a thread on why you think the human value system needs reformation first. What's the value of producing a "quick composite" list of things people care about? It's unending and ever-changing. And your list focuses on a predominately negative perspective on what people care about, so your biases further erode any worth.

Well, maybe not great, but noteworthy, interesting, and worth more intellectually than conjecture.

I also think humans are important, but for completely different reasons, and from a multitude of perspectives.

This is General Philosophy, not generalization philosophy. An assertion like this needs some evidence to back it up, and not simple anecdote. Citation from a peer-reviewed study would be great.

Soap lowers the surface tension of water so the molecules break up more, making both the water and soap more efficient at cleaning.

Help me with this, please. Are you talking about the ring that's left when you twist the top off a bottle of water or soda? If you're going to worry about that to the point of wanting it disinfected, why don't you just cut it off with a knife or scissors?

Or some thing. Drones could carry some small weights, but I don't think most can lift an air tank. How 007 would it be to swim up to the boat and have a fleet of drones take your SCUBA gear from you, like aerial butlers?

Approximately not enough to matter very much.

If you learn to be the best oatmeal raisin cookie baker ever, I'll place a monthly order. I loved the episode in the first season of Friends where Phoebe claims to make the world's best oatmeal raisin cookies in the world, and Rachel is amazed when it's true. Phoebe tells her "Oh, I don't make them very often. It's not fair to the other cookies."

But with the black hole, the EH represents an area where gravity curves spacetime intensely. I was wondering if, approaching a neutron star, there would be a similar but less intense curvature. I remember Larry Niven's fictional life on a neutron star, and dealing with a surface gravity billions of times stronger than Earth, but I can't remember if he wrote about any Earthlings trying to approach it.

I had assumed (bad, bad!) that having 1.3 - 2.5 solar masses squeezed into a 12 mile radius sphere would generate an area where the gravity would become suddenly intense, similar to what happens when the matter overcomes neutron degeneracy as well. If one were to approach a neutron star in a space vehicle, would it feel the same gravitationally as approaching a normal star of such mass?

From the link: The "intense gravity" comes from the matter that has overcome electron degeneracy, right? Does a neutron star have a calculable event horizon at which point this gravity becomes "intense"? Does the "high-speed rotation" create the "powerful magnetic forces"? I'd always thought a neutron star was inactive, a dead star, but a magnetar seems capable of quite a bit of illumination.