Phi for All

It's rare that anything meaningful comes after these five words.

All of my friends are animals, so I've got THAT going for me. Which is nice.

All that studying, and you came to this conclusion?! I think you're really harming your studies by holding on to this idea that evolution is directed by your deity.

Moderator Note We attack ideas here, not people. Using Down Syndrome as an insult is unacceptable, and has earned you a three day vacation. IF you return, no more of this behavior will be tolerated.

As long as we're discussing topics with you, we're happy. As long as you realize that LLMs are often wrong, have no math skills other than copying, and focus more on making you happy with an answer rather than being correct, we should be OK. I will say this. This forum has some outstanding science educators, all volunteer, and rather than try to answer questions using AI, I suggest you ask questions of our membership. They really are quite knowledgeable and friendly, as long as you don't try to explain something without evidence to back it up. Welcome to SFN!

It's costly to move a satellite, and they only have so much fuel. Orbital debris is already a big problem, and a grain of sand can tear up a lot of equipment travelling thousands of miles an hour in orbit. We track everything we can, but it's not getting better since the pieces collide in orbit and create hundreds more pieces. Here's a simulation. The red bits are debris: https://platform.leolabs.space/visualization

Moderator NoteIn a discussion about YOUR ideas, you are responsible for persuading those involved that they have merit. You've done little to persuade, and instead have ridiculed your critics for their inability to comprehend. They didn't start the thread, you did, and chose not to participate in discussion in favor of standing on a soapbox preaching. Thread closed, don't bring this up again.

Moderator NoteWord docs aren't allowed for security purposes. Please use the PDF format, or better yet, give us an overview of your idea, posted here so we can quote parts of it. That's the best way to get input in discussion. Thanks for understanding.

Moderator NoteWe have a rule against creationist arguments since they continually use misunderstood or misrepresented information, logical fallacies like strawman, and obfuscation based on sheer ignorance and a need for your extremist beliefs to be correct. You've done all that here in just a few posts. You keep parroting the same tired, ignorant arguments I saw 20 years ago here. You folks purposely misrepresent knowledge you don't have, and it's very, very sad to those who've studied this. I'm restricting your content instead of banning you, since I know creationists notch their belts with forum bans. You should learn with an open mind and let go of the hate in your heart.

Moderator NoteWhen given evidence "on the naturalistic theme", you ignored it in favor of many tangents and red herrings. We're just not going to do this dance anymore, Wigberto. You claim to want evidence, then you use every tired creationist argument and tactic to brush off the rest of the people in the conversation. We have rules against all of this, including the soapbox stance you've been taking on a subject you clearly know nothing about. Thread closed. Don't try this crap again.

Moderator NoteWe need to lose the snark immediately. Those who can't be bothered to observe a minimum of courtesy don't need to participate. Asking for definitions doesn't need to set an ugly tone.

I said his law is used to calculate the radius. Over time our data has improved, and so has the calculation.

It was figured using the Hubble Constant, which he published in 1929 but was based on earlier maths and observations by lots of other luminaries of the time.

Moderator NoteYou should start your own science discussion forum, because this one has some standards.

Moderator Note We discuss science within parameters which include all the evidence needed to trust an explanation, and all you're saying is "try this". That's not scientific, and we've run out of ways to discuss how unscientific it is. Thread closed, and if you'd like to stay to discuss science, don't open it again.

I've seen some beautiful work with stucco, which is the same mixture plus clean sand. Not on interior walls, though, only exterior, mainly because it's weather resistant and has a bit of texture to it. Anything concrete is going to have some problems with cracking when the house shifts inevitably. Fortunately, it's a pretty inexpensive solution to maintain.

Like Commandments, or something?

It really doesn't matter who your friend is or what they've done, in the long run. If the idea is sound, it will pass review by those who've studied science. If it's based on a few misconceptions (which most untrained ideas are), those can be corrected, and if the idea is still viable (hasn't been falsified) then the idea is stronger for it, better supported. It's really all about the evidence that backs it up. It's not at all about credentials, it's about knowledge, or lack of ignorance in a certain area. We all have ignorance to overcome, and it's best to fill the gaps in our knowledge with trusted explanations rather than guesswork and whimsy. Post the idea in the appropriate section and we'll attack it mercilessly. The idea, not you. We don't attack people here.

Were they all LLMs? Why do you think they did the maths for you? Was it just because they told you they did? How can we discuss this if you're so convinced it has to be correct? That's soapboxing, and nobody on a discussion forum likes a preacher. We want to talk to you, but you're using the LLMs. Nobody wants to talk to the LLMs, they're not good sources of accurate information, especially on the level you're expecting them to be. They don't take the place of solid science knowledge.

I would encourage you to study the history. It clearly shows that this comparison isn't even a little extreme. This is a good time for some bullet-points.

Moderator Note Sorry Dominic, we're a science discussion forum. We want to hear from YOU about this idea, with some rigor and evidence to support it, but we don't accept topics generated with LLMs. We're already pretty sensitive to bot-driven distractions, so I hope you understand. Can you present your idea, in another thread since I'm closing this one, without all the AI assistance? We want to talk to you, please.

I don't see how this link supports your assertion that Mounjaro is behind Musk's recent bizarre behavior. There's no psych-activity in that article from Axios.

Evolution is a fact, we observe it in nature. You don't believe in the theory that has amassed mountains of evidence to support itself as an explanation. What about mutation? We didn't evolve from today's apes. Humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor. This is very basic evolution theory, so I think you don't trust the theory because you don't understand it. We know evolution occurs. Our current theory is the best explanation we have, using centuries of observation and experimentation. I encourage you to give the theory another try.

He asked me for graph paper earlier. I think @joigus is plotting something.

Oh, aye. And if you're just creating a copy of you in the new location, why not just travel across the galaxy like that instead of using a ship? Is it slower to relay a teleporter scan than to take a starship there? In the beginning, I think the transporter really was supposed to throw your broken-down molecules a short distance where they were then reassembled. That's why it couldn't be used to travel long distances in the blink of an eye, just short hops down to the planet's surface or to another ship.