Phi for All

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.

We're told not to trust thieves in some of the earliest Abrahamic writings. There is even a commandment allegedly from their god himself condemning thieves, so this seems like a poor way to introduce the return of Jesus. I also wonder if Jesus will be prepared to bypass all the technology we now have to help us pay attention. Our normal habits have become fairly paranoid.

! Moderator Note OK, you're making a LOT of non-mainstream statements that would need evidential support, PLUS you're referencing religious works as well, so this can't stay in Astronomy and Cosmology. I'm moving this to Speculations, where you'll need to support your ideas with evidence and sound reasoning. Please be rigorous in addressing comments from members, who will be trying to show where observation contradicts your ideas. Welcome to the discussion forums!

I think many of the folks arguing against mandatory vaccines are thinking about it like seatbelts. "Sure they save lives, but it should be a choice since it's my body." But this is more like the old Christmas lights, where if one bulb is out, the whole strand doesn't work. This is more like if you don't wear your seatbelt, other people's seatbelts won't engage properly.

I agree completely. This isn't about individual rights, and I think those who think protecting our population from viruses and disease is a choice they get to make individually are being obtuse. Some things need to be agreed on by everyone participating or the system won't work at all. I see little difference between "You can't make me wear a mask!" and "You can't stop me from urinating in the streets!", other than current enforcement.

! Moderator Note You need to post information here, and give the membership a good starting point for a discussion with your opening post. Also, Word docs are often unsafe. It would be best to copy/paste your information here, but you can also convert your doc to a PDF and I think more folks would click on it.

Questioning your credibility based on ANYTHING would be a personal attack in a thread like this, imo, and was never my goal. I was attacking your stance on this particular issue, and I had asked if there might be something in the national mood that might have influenced your stance in the same way it did wrt gay rights in the past. You had said your opinions no longer align with the national sentiment, and you regretted your earlier stance (or did I misread that all completely?!). I was trying to draw a parallel with this issue, that it may seem very cut and dried to you now, but isn't there a possibility your stance might relax a bit in time? But I did it so badly that you and MigL and others think I was either stereotyping you, or questioning your credibility, or blindly being overly emotional about the topic while calling out others for it. I reread what I wrote and I can't find where I said these things, or even implied them, but it has happened so often that it must be me. Blame it on the busy holidays, maybe later I can take more time to figure out what I keep doing wrong. I hope all the genders stay safe this holiday season! Take care.

That's an insulting strawman attack on StringJunky's post and his obvious intentions. We both were questioning koti's own words about local influences on his stance regarding gender, and I find your twisting of that to make it look like we're caricaturizing him as homophobic to be cheap and beneath you. Why must so many feel so threatened by this?

Still so many variables! We radiate a lot of molecules even if we aren't exchanging fluids. Does sweat from moist hands count as a fluid exchange, since it could be one way only? How long ago did you bathe? Are you looking for skin cells left behind from shaking hands, and other bits of someone else you might wash off, or are you looking for bits from someone else you've accidentally incorporated into your own system?

I'm not. I'm referring to your comment about the former Polish national stance against homosexuality, which you said a lot of people are ashamed of, including you. If that didn't involve a concession, my apologies for assuming. Perhaps I phrased it poorly, but this is what I meant, that you've had to defend your stance against anti-vaxxers who are close to you, not that you've agreed with them. Apparently so.

Or, OR, we could be wondering why you can easily concede that you've been wrong in the past about other topics that involve gender, but can't even conceive of it in this case. You've also had trouble before with anti-vaxxer stances as well, and iirc you followed the science on that one and reasoned through a LOT of arguments you were getting locally. That may not seem related either, but I can't help but see you as someone trying to navigate life like the rest of us, with a hopeful eye towards the future and one foot stubbornly dragging in the past. I know that my stubborn foot rarely sees reason, so it's up to my hopeful eye to sort out what's rational. Stubborn is where my emotions lead me when I can't come up with good reasoning, and perhaps I'm merely projecting that onto you. If so, I'm sorry.

Does "allmighty bandwagon" suggest the arguments are merely popular but have no merit or reason? It's frustrating to think you view the opposing arguments as intractable when they're trying to point out the unwavering futility of requiring that only two sexes be acknowledged. It's especially frustrating because you've expressed concern about authoritarian stances in your own country, and it's hard to separate this concern from the ones you've expressed about the possibility of there being more than two sexes.

I care what the words "reasoned argument" mean, and I see one being employed in iNow's post, but you keep choosing the "throw my arms up in disgust and refuse to engage rationally" approach. Is there a doubt about iNow's argument? I haven't seen anyone disassemble it yet, only wave their hands and claim it's a ridiculous parade, without showing exactly why. I'm willing to listen, but your incredulity isn't as compelling as you might think.

We don't give answers here, but can help if you let us know how far you've gotten and what parts you don't understand.

! Moderator Note This isn't our policy, as swansont made clear. I'm closing this, so please open a separate thread for each topic.

! Moderator Note I hope you can understand why we can't let anyone promote their YouTube videos on a site made for discussing science. The written word can be scanned quickly for basic veracity, but videos take time, and the usual signal-to-noise ratio is horrific. If you can, please give us a summary of what you're proposing, unless feedback on your video was the only goal. If that's the case, best of luck elsewhere.

Pbob is very sorry, but they have to leave this science discussion forum, and there's no objection from staff.