Phi for All

I was never in the Navy, but my brother was, and I've spent a lot of time on the deep sea. It's nasty, unwarranted, and tasteless to make such references about people trapped in a damaged vessel out in the void. Those folks are far from help and most likely about to die, and the fact that you chose the words so carefully makes it worse, imo. There's nothing ironic about the dangers faced when you're beyond assistance and taking on water/losing O2. Only the awful part is true. It seems I wasn't the only one to take exception at your carefully chosen words. While I completely agree that orbital debris continues to be a huge problem for our offplanet interests, I'm perhaps a bit sensitive when it comes to treating those in deep waters/outer space as humans from Earth first, and ignore nationality in the case of life-threatening emergencies. If we want to maintain the peaceful uses of outer space, we need to respect what it takes to get there and get back safely.

Wrecked space vessels are much like wrecked sea vessels. Very little hope of surviving, so I find your "awful irony" more awful than ironic. Does this mean you wouldn't want to help them if that happened? What would that mean for the Outer Space Treaty?

Because I never listen, and think what I have to say is more important?

That's what I was thinking. It seems too small a part for any decorative grooving, so perhaps the groove is for a string or wire.

A preacher on a discussion forum is nothing but a megaphone. I prefer conversing around a table, but the preacher wants to jump on top and tell us only their side. In all my time here, there has NEVER been a preacher who is a good teacher, imo. Good teachers listen AND talk.

And that's the point being made here, that in circumstances where the BBT is applicable, it's not vague and incomplete, which is what mistermack's reply insinuated. I may be splitting hairs here, or I may have been confused with the infinity claims, but I wanted the OP to understand that BBT has nothing to do with "the origin of everything", nor is it considered to be a theory of everything.

How far have you gotten so far?

Perhaps you didn't read zapatos' reply ahead of yours, where he shows this comparison is like claiming his sourdough recipe is vague and incomplete if you apply it where it doesn't belong. Your reply seemed to cast the BBT in doubt coming after his reply.

If I were offering an alternative argument, perhaps. What I was doing instead was applying more rigor in the terms being used. BBT is NOT vague and incomplete because of infinities and "the origin of everything". Again, not applicable here. A "god in the gaps" is NOT about having to show where the god's creators came from. But perhaps you didn't mean to use a phrase so similar to "god OF the gaps", and I'm being picky. And I thought you misrepresented "current opinion" as well, but again that could be the difference between science and philosophy. My comments were to clarify in an attempt to keep more misunderstanding from forming on the part of the OP, not as an alternative argument.

The zapatos sourdough bread recipe is similarly vague and incomplete, if you expect it to clear up the riddle of how wheat is grown. IOW, BBT says absolutely, positively, adamantly, boisterously, purposely NOTHING about "the origin of everything". The theory stops where our knowledge does, just before your "riddle of infinity" is introduced. God-of-the-gaps (if that's the way you meant it) isn't a "turtles all the way down" problem, really. GotG shows why it's not a good idea to rely on supernatural explanations when you don't know something, since they keep getting squeezed out when we figure out what's happening naturally. If history continues to repeat, natural explanations will be all there is. The BBT describes the expansion and evolution of the universe from a very hot, very dense state to what we see now. It doesn't describe the beginning of everything. Every theory has a very finite area of application. None of them were ever meant to be used in every situation. They each represent our best current explanation for various phenomena, based on mathematical models that work extremely well when specifically applied. I think a lot of the infinitely bigger questions are more philosophical than scientific.

! Moderator Note Please stop, it's like fingernails on a chalk board. This doesn't meet the scientific requirements of ANY of our sections, which means it's the foundation for wasted time and typing. If you're a bot, you'll leave more evidence and we'll soon remove you. If you really think these words in this order are reasonable, then you need to read up on the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The words you think you know don't mean what you think they mean. If you're willing to learn some actual science, please read some posts, sign up for some free online classes (Khan Academy is amazing), and you'll gradually pick up on how the terminology and processes are really used. You'll be able to put the words together in ways that have meaning and clarity for others interested in mainstream science. And remember, theories are the gold standard in science. They aren't guesses; they're the most trustworthy explanations for various phenomena available. When you call something "theoretical", it's a LOT more than saying, "It may be possible".

In my experience, people who say this are looking for ways not to have to study it. Or they don't understand the maths of the LCDM model the theory is based on, and assume BBT is equally confusing, so why bother to dig deeply into it?

Is this for homework?

Their soapbox stances elevate their ears above the discussion, turning them into monologues.

! Moderator Note This doesn't belong in any Physics section, and I doubt you could support this in Speculations. I'll put it in the Lounge for now, if anyone wants to engage.

The top half looks like a bell, as studiot mentioned. Does the split there have a function, like allowing the top part of the bell to vibrate? Or perhaps a thread or wire could be passed through to secure one of the pair to another pair? Or is the seam/split purely decorative?

Sure, but what if someone purposely told you there was an important reason they didn't want their username capitalized (it's a family thing, or a cultural thing, or a religious thing, or...), and they'd appreciate it if you'd remember not to do it when spelling their name. And if you kept "slipping up" and substituting a y where that person prefers an i, it would be somewhat like the experience of transgenders who place a great deal of importance on how they're addressed, and consider it a matter of respect (or lack thereof). To them, your slip ups may eventually looked planned and purposeful, to insult or otherwise show a lack of respect for their choices.

If koti points out the proper spelling of his name to you, yet you insist on capitalizing it and using a y at the end instead of an i for reasons of your own, and continue to do so in spite of his pleas to get it right, I think you're not only being discourteous, you might have some bigoted reason for not using his preferred spelling. After a while, it might seem like you were being purposely disrespectful and had some insulting reason for doing it.

Do you mean the "latter", as in the last example you gave ("wanted, attractive, positive valence, or towards preference"), opposite of "former", THAT latter? If you mean "the letter", I don't know what that is. Sorry. It really seemed like you were. You claimed the proponents of it were "interesting", and then laid out their proposals. If you're not arguing for these down-with-life stances, what did you want to discuss?

The basis of that "value" you mention would be interesting to know. What scale determines the value? What exactly is being negatively impacted wrt animal life? Now you have to define "feelings". I define a love letter as containing positive and negative feelings. Life should have stricter parameters, imo. I can see why, and I'm glad you have doubts about this philosophy. It seems to focus on some perceived lacks in certain higher order species and conclude that they all need to be eliminated. It's difficult to see where that kind of reasoning ever becomes clear or critically thought out. Oh, so another bad faith argument. "I'm doubting my philosophy, can you please help?" And now you're going to soapbox for killing people to avoid their suffering. This is a science discussion forum. Jeez.

Intelligent life is the source of suffering in the world? How intelligent? Humans only, or do the dolphins have to leave as well? I suppose I'm being too philosophical in taking a much deeper view of humanity over a longer period of time, and placing them in context with other species. Sorry. Consciousness as in human-level awareness, or conscious beings like primates, or what? And no matter where you set the bar, life is ALWAYS best for consciousness. If you aren't defining it this way, then you have a non-mainstream definition of death. Welfare is something else you should probably define more clearly, but it would seem to be a fairly subjective and contextual measurement with regard to living beings. I'm trying to show objectively how, if you take a big step back and look at the bigger picture, life is inevitable if there's enough solar energy to take advantage of existing conditions. From there, evolution is always adapting life to the conditions it finds itself in. Any arguments you may have after that need to take that universal process into account.

Thank you very much for the clarifications. And do I understand that you no longer benefit from holding these stances, and are questioning their validity in general? I can see why promoting an anti-life stance would be prohibitive intellectually. Evolution selected for enough intelligence in humans for them to see that life has a negative value? That makes little sense. If you understand evolution, life is anything but negative. In fact, it's reasonable to say that life is more efficient at absorbing and distributing energy from the sun than inorganic matter is, therefore life is inevitable and desirable. You could sterilize the whole planet but there's a great chance the whole marvelous process would find a way to start up again. I can see why some folks have a negative view about humans on the planet, and why they think of us as some kind of usurper in a world of nature. But it sounds like your old beliefs lumped plants and animal life into it as well. I'm not sure I've ever discussed life with someone who didn't want ANYTHING to live.

Are you seeking response only from those who know these terms, have held these stances, and now don't?

You caught me. I was hoping to provide a good contrasting example to show everyone that masculine insults, peacock showboating, and aggressive dismissal diminish a conversation in much the same way they diminish the esteem of everyone within earshot. I don't have to respond to ALL posts in the thread, just the ones I think warrant it. It occurs to me that many might view calling someone by a different pronoun the same way they'd view being asked to wear something silly. They're the one who have to speak the word, and if they think it has no point then they object that it's "ridiculous". In that POV, it's like asking Arnold (every man's image of themselves, right?) to wear a tutu. And of course, that's not the case at all. I prefer to think of it as a friend who is asking me for a favor that costs me nothing (I'm not wearing a tutu after all, I'm using a pronoun the person I'm talking to prefers). I have to use a pronoun anyway, so it will just take me a bit to adjust and make someone feel better about themselves (and I don't have to understand why they don't like the ones that I've always used before).

I've noticed that many folks are pushing back against what's already been built into our societies, which is usually a kind of binary relationship out of convenience and economy. In the US, people are shoehorned into too few categories, and it seems to be that way in many countries. If you're not a circle or a square, you end up getting flagged as different. And these flags, they're persistent and act as a drag on people's prosperity. It's like trying to compete in a race fairly but every flag on you weighs an extra twenty pounds you have to compensate for just to keep pace. Yet science (and especially you, David Attenborough!) tells us that diversity is the key to a vibrant ecosystem. It seems like a poor use of our intelligence to want such homogenization and lack of choices and potentials as are advocated by JP and the far right in this regard. In the modern era, our best accomplishments have involved more diverse use of resources and intellect, and embracing new ideas (especially to help fight the depression many are finally admitting to) to solve old problems is good science. In my society, I try to see from a more collective perspective when I'm dealing with others. The staff at restaurants and shops aren't there to serve me like a lord when I snap my masculine fingers. When I drive, I want all of us to get where we're going safely, not just me quickly. And it's in my best interest to address those I interact with in the way that makes them feel best (if I want to make it all about me). This seems like an easy way to help someone remove a flag that's been holding them back, and the ripple effect can help create more diversity for society to work with.