Phi for All

We tell ourselves stories about ourselves in order to deal with our lives, and when those stories are good and positive ("student who's excited about applying knowledge learned in studying Computer Engineering to real life situations"), they can be motivating and inspiring. When we tell ourselves bad and negative stories, they can be depressing and draining. Sometimes it can be as simple as changing the story you tell yourself. It's true that we often tell ourselves there are things we don't feel like doing, and if we keep thinking that way we'll probably not do them. We tell ourselves we'll get burned out if we study too much, or we tell ourselves it's too much trouble to get dressed up for that party we'll probably be bored at. But we've all experienced those times when we tell ourselves something different, something positive, and suddenly we're motivated enough to do the thing we've been avoiding, and then we find it wasn't so bad after all. In fact it was pretty great. What you obviously need to avoid is letting this "I don't feel like doing this" feeling be random. Set aside some regular time when you do absolutely nothing, instead of allowing yourself to goof off at a time when you really need to be studying. Tell yourself you're now "student who gets their studying done early so they can spend the rest of the day watching YouTube videos without guilt". If necessary, print out some inspirational phrases and hang them up where you can see them regularly. Many people tell themselves awful stories about themselves in the privacy of their minds, and they forget to remind themselves how utterly awesome they are, and how far they've come, and how much they've learned in so short a time. Don't forget that your brain came at great sacrifice to the rest of your body. Birds gave up much of their physiology in order to fly, and your species did the same to evolve that brilliant brain of yours. Tell yourself better stories.

! Moderator Note I want you to understand that what you're doing is NOT discussion. You've adopted a stance, and you've presented it, but when confronted with replies that refute what you're saying, using mainstream science understanding, you choose to ignore them instead of researching their validity and taking them on board to adjust your arguments accordingly. This shows us you don't understand what the refutations are explaining, which is further supported by your initial misunderstandings. You don't seem to know enough science to understand why it's unreasonable to make the assertions you make. In other words, you aren't listening, you're soapboxing. You're continuing to make the same claims even though they've been shown to be wrong. You seem to be caught in a loop where you can't learn why you can't learn these things, and unfortunately this behavior breaks a few of our rules. Nobody wants to waste their time if you aren't going to listen, yet EVERYBODY would love to see that you actually learned something from these discussions. Fair warning that folks are starting to report your posts as a waste of time, so if you can figure out a way to support your ideas better, or actually reply to what the other members are trying to tell you, it might keep you from getting banned for rule-breaking. And let's be clear, if you're banned it will be because you broke the site's rules, not because you broke Einstein's theories.

If you can suggest he was corrupt and intellectually dishonest, you don't have to actually study his work. Huge time saver for the ignorant.

The model it's based on takes us back to a point just after t=0, but nothing about either model or theory says that's when time itself started. It's just the beginning of a universal evolution from an extremely hot, dense state to our present configuration. Beginning of an era, rather.

But how can this argument rise above the No True Scotsman fallacy? With over 9000 recognized sects, which contexts in Christian belief are thoughtful and which aren't?

Vane efforts are like building a turbine. Vain efforts don't yield the expected outcome. Vein efforts are when we see blood vessels stand out on your skin.

The signal we're looking for is always buried in noise, and alone we can only sift through so much. Discussion helps a lot, and your contributions are welcome.

Unless you prefer the simplest cookie over anything else, or think the baked color is the most important part of the cookie, I don't think this is possible. A default sugar cookie is only ever going to be satisfactory if you're looking for any other factors. But perfecting a simple cookie is going to teach you some mad baking skills along the way. Someday you may want to go nuts, or spice things up, and you'll know how to think outside the oven because you learned the oven so well. Let us know how well they turn out. Yum! We may need a whole other thread for what to have with them, milk or tea?

Computer or phone? I've noticed my phone OS is much more aggressive lately with ad tabs that cover what I'm trying to read, but nothing like that on my computer.

When I read studiot's post, he seems to suggest your conclusions were adversely affected by mistaken assumptions. He does NOT seem to suggest that ignorant people should stay away from the forum, or that one should only ask questions one knows the answers to. In fact, he includes some information to help dispel some of the ignorance you admit to having about the subject. Ignorance is NOT stupidity, it's simply a lack of knowledge about a specific subject.

You DID pull that off, way to go! I recently had an epiphany about bicyclists. In my area, they often give bicycles about 8 inches of asphalt to the right of the solid line on major, one-lane roads. My apophenia lumped all these cyclists together as "exercisers" and "hobbyists" and "those practicing for a tour/race", so I got annoyed that they often chose early morning commute times to cycle in their clingy outfits with sponsor ads all over them. Then someone pointed out that many offices have showers for employees that cycle commute great distances. As soon as I realized these cyclists were probably fellow commuters instead of hobbyists just out for the exercise, my whole attitude towards them changed. I had misinterpreted their presence.

Are you actually trying to pull off an Appeal to Age fallacy in this thread? Bold move, Methuselah.

Our Guidelines link to RationalWiki for logical fallacies: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

Staring into the shadows can cause imaginary predators, so I'd imagine there is a comforting corollary for imagining angels.

Do you really think ALL decisions need to be respected? Perhaps you're using definitions of "respect" or "anyone" with which I'm unfamiliar.

I refuse absolutely. Some ideas should never merit anyone's respect.

Fear, stupidity, and Vitamin Duh. I wonder if I can market some heated boots for those worried about falling through the ice when fishing? Or maybe a special red cape to identify those who don't want to be near bulls?

If your education is "relatively" limited, how would you recognize a core-shaking demonstration? You've had many replies to your arguments, and you don't seem to be actively trying to see what they're saying, so it may be that your limited knowledge isn't enough. Sometimes when we fill in the gaps in our knowledge with things we've made up, those things seem to make more sense to us. It can make us think we're right because we don't understand what others are demonstrating, so we think they must be wrong. I think learning is a lot like breathing. Even if your lungs work great, you need a certain O2 concentration before breathing becomes effective. With learning, I think you need a certain concentration of background knowledge so you can recognize what other knowledge looks like. How many members join to argue against mainstream explanations, get tons of replies showing them where they're wrong, and then declare they've seen nothing to persuade them from the belief in the core sentiment of their arguments? I suspect it's because they just don't know enough about the basics of the subject to understand the more complex applications of it, like a first-time actor trying out for the part of Hamlet. If you only know a little maths, you're going to apply what you know to every mathematical problem, and you'll find that your limited skill doesn't stretch to fit every calculation. The solution is to learn more, not make up new stuff that only makes sense to you.

! Moderator Note OK, that's enough of that! It's pretty clear you're ignoring the replies you're getting because you don't understand them, so I'd go back to the basics and study some more. Perhaps start with some maths so trying to understand Relativity isn't such a chore. If you want to learn how to act, you shouldn't dive right into Shakespeare, right? Thread closed, don't bring this up again for at least a year.

And when those decisions also impact other's bodies? Should you be allowed to be around others if you've dowsed yourself with a scent that triggers allergic reactions? You may decide you don't like to wear shoes when you drive, and kick them off as soon as you get in the car, but if they later get jammed under the brake pedal as you approach my car, you've turned a decision regarding your own body into one that very suddenly regards mine as well. While I can respect wanting a say wrt anything that happens to one's body, I think disease and its prevention in dense populations falls into a different category. I almost got hit by an old lady yesterday at that pesky 3-way stop. I waited for the car in front of her to turn left, then I started to make my own left, but after stopping she just ignored me and made her left out of cycle. She made a decision about her own driving that didn't take anyone else into account, and we both almost paid for it. I can't help but see immunization in the same light.

So I'll mention (AGAIN) that you're wrong about length contraction not being observer dependent. And I still don't think you understand that observers seeing the same thing in different frames are NOT seeing different positions. When these concepts are mentioned, you dodge and dance and throw out red herrings about block universes or whatnot. IOW, it's like you have a huge gap in your knowledge that you're ignoring by pacing around it instead of trying to fill it in.

While staff appreciates a heads-up via Report Post when you spot a new member who posts like a potential spammer, or like a disruptive member you've encountered on another forum, our rules are designed to keep our standards on a level playing field. We hope you can see why we can't just ban someone on your say-so, and also hope you'll trust that these folks will reveal their agendas, or break enough rules, or otherwise self-limit their involvement on our site.

! Moderator Note You didn't address your mistake about energy "density", so that would help. It's OK to say your words were misconstrued, but then you should explain what you really meant. ! Moderator Note Since you're making scientific claims, let's leave religion out of it, since it represents a supernatural aspect that can't be addressed. You should be able to support your concept with evidence.

Everyone else in this thread is talking about their opinions based on what they've read and experienced, but you seem to be preaching some kind of absolute certainty. Does "faithful" mean unquestioning? Are you one of those people who believe your way is the only way?

I've been thinking about this a lot lately since a part of my daily drive involves a couple of busy 3-way and 4-way stop intersections. If people don't cooperate with the "vehicle to the right has the right of way" law when we stop at the same time, accidents are practically guaranteed. If you choose to ignore that law regularly, it won't be long before you're the cause of a lot of misery. More people need to perceive vaccinations and masking the same way. You don't have the right to disrupt the safety of a working system.