Phi for All

"Hey Titian, could you paint me some figures from mythology, but make them naked? If they become masterpieces, remember it was my idea!" It's also the way horoscopes work. Except for the technical details, I know what's going to happen to each and every one of you this week.

Are you asking why we don't have a History/Military History subsection? Here's a thread where you can ask that. Did you want to talk about a specific bit of history? Please open a thread in either the Lounge, Politics, or Other Sciences, depending on the angle you'd prefer to talk about. Be as specific as you can and you'll get specific responses. Also, "except" is the wrong preposition to use in this instance, since I assume you're including yourself with the set of history/military enthusiasts. "Except me" EXCLUDES you. If you're including yourself, you use "besides". "Any history/military enthusiasts out there, besides me?" You could also use the more clumsy "apart from" if you prefer. Note that I'm also assuming you're a grammar/language enthusiast as well.

People who are "pretty new to the actual workings" of science often eschew rigorous study in favor of the less intense intuition and imagination path. Until you understand the actual workings a bit better, it can seem intuitive that science should be intuitive. Rigor is often misunderstood as being hidebound.

I would imagine the influences are myriad. How does it help to determine where someone is on the novelty detection spectrum? Aren't we more influenced by how positively or negatively we associate with various stimuli? If your experience with meeting new people has been overall positive, you're more likely to experience less anxiety about such novelty, but if your experience has been mostly negative, meeting new people is not a pleasant prospect and is often actively avoided.

You're begging the question with this. How do you know someone's preference for travel is based on novelty alone? Some folks like to go to the same place every year for vacation. They get to know the locals, they like the comfort of knowing their way around, and they feel more a part of where they're staying, and less like a tourist. Others prefer a different venue each time they travel. Being a tourist is a fantastic thing for them, with everyone waiting to help you enjoy what their locale has to offer. It's not as much about the novelty as it is the sheer number of places on Earth to visit with the limited resources (including time) we have. There are MANY perspectives on travel alone that have nothing to do with novelty.

Give that lateral epicondylitis a chance to heal.

Too much noise and not enough signal, even for the Politics section. You should start a different thread, in Speculations, if you want to pursue this non-mainstream idea (and support it with evidence, of course). It's off-topic in a thread about coronavirus distancing. Airborne virus, right? Distancing also prevents contact, but the hand-washing and attention to sanitary measures are supposed to cover most of that. Masks and distancing minimize breathing in aerosol droplets that may contain the virus. Why do you think we're supposed to be staying far apart?

AlexandrKushnirtshuk has been banned for repeated soapboxing. Frequency doesn't improve error.

You're suggesting that breathing too close to someone else in public (which is the reason for distancing) be considered an assault that justifies physical self-defense? That sounds fairly one-dimensional for a law, even a temporary one, and I would prefer a solution aimed at keeping more people safe. Something that didn't take the possibility of hospitalization and turn it into a certainty. ... and because the exertion and yelling makes everyone breathe harder. ... and because others may intervene, turning an individual into a crowd. ... and because you're inviting retaliatory self-defensive behavior that might scale beyond your control.

A true Scotsman doesn't buy it, he makes his own.

Can you elaborate on the meaning of this term?

https://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/nnano.2015.250__1_.pdf Thanks for putting the name to the hypothesis! It's not one I would expect to win any converts over with, especially those who believe you're here because you were put here.

This may account for the attempts to personally demean those arguing against the OP. It's difficult to defend bad science without resorting to bad arguments, so lashing out with ridicule is often the go-to position.

Also one of the definitions of delusion. What steps have you taken to rule out personal cognitive biases?

I remember reading an article on dissipation-driven adaptation, and it seemed an excellent argument for abiogenesis.

I agree with the title, but not because of your assumption. Life was inevitable simply because organic life is more efficient at absorbing and distributing heat from the sun than inorganic matter is.

It's more likely we'll discover better ways to leave the system sooner than we learn to manipulate the processes of a sun. Once our sun leaves its main sequence, I think Mars will be part of the red giant's atmosphere, unless the sun's mass decreases enough to let Mars expand its orbit.

Nothing vs something is a binary proposition. You can't add a second "something" and call it "something else" without violating your original proposition. I'm not sure why you can't see this plainly, and instead consider your proposition to be consistent. It's not even consistent grammatically, much less physically or scientifically.

Mine taught me not to base an argument on a false premise. Your post mixes vague aspects ("seems to be happening") and generalizations with specific assertions, so it's not very reasoned (logic is for maths and philosophy, not physics). Where does prediction fit into your assumptions? It's one of the most powerful aspects of theory, and you've significantly omitted any mention. Many discoveries are made because the theory predicts it must be so.

fredreload has been added.

! Moderator Note But you haven't supported it with evidence, you haven't answered the flaws others found, and all the hand-waiving in the world won't generate enough lift to make the idea fly. We can't discuss anything meaningfully until those fundamental points are addressed. Convincing yourself alone isn't enough. You've begun to soapbox now, sticking by your claims even though they've been shown false, and unwilling to do more than stomp your feet and proclaim greatness. All against the rules of discussion here, so thread closed. Don't bring it up again if you can't be bothered with rigor.

! Moderator Note We don't do conspiracy here. If you have some supportive evidence for this statement, present it, but you're not allowed to simply wave your hands and conjure up the subjugation of humanity. More rigor, please.

Your definition of "reasonable" is unreasonable.

! Moderator Note Very little you've said aids any kind of meaningful discussion. You really need to focus on one little thing at a time, and be as clear as possible. THIS IS NOT A BLOG! We're not going to discuss why your book didn't get published. This is a science discussion forum. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note Either provide details that can be analyzed or this thread will be closed. As it is, this looks like some crackpot lost his mind over the rejection of his misinformed ideas and is now whining big time. There's NOTHING to discuss in this thread's current form. Do better!