Phi for All

12 hours ago, nec209 said:

The problem is the liberals are not pushing for economic improvements

You should look at news sources other than the ones you're currently using if you think this statement is correct. Or it could be that you're using metrics others aren't using. For instance, our economic growth rate has been positive despite economists predicting the opposite due to inflation. 

1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

Why would anyone waste their time doing that?  It's just a chat bot...

QFT.

On 11/15/2023 at 8:03 AM, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

@Phi for AllI am not an expert on religions but to me, if God created everything, God should only want to condemn things that God could not help but introduce that destroy the very thing that he built.

I perceive this as an anti-benefit. Your god is supposed to be all-powerful, all-knowing, yet it makes us imperfectly and condemns us for not overcoming these imperfections?! That doesn't seem like a wise, benevolent demeanor. It seems like what a child would do when it's not getting enough attention.

5 hours ago, Sensei said:

How does the TARDIS bag summarize the weight contained in the bag? (volume vs mass problem)

It's bigger on the inside.

If we're looking into the engineering behind certain verses, can we figure out how one could become a pinball wizard playing by sense of smell?

If you only keep the parts you can eat, then the buck might tuck if there's no other swag in the bag.

Or what if it's really a TARDIS bag?

1 hour ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

God can be thought of as ultimate kindness. He loves all of us equally and so we should be kind to each other also.

This seems so hypocritical to me, since the Abrahamic god will send you to hell for eternity while it's loving all of us equally. But this is the number one benefit to god imo; one can use it to manipulate the fearful and ignorant. 

25 minutes ago, nec209 said:

No where in history some thing like this has happen not even the Roman Empire and are psychologist or psychiatrist even have any training to deal with this when the US is becoming mental and crazy? And how do you fix such problem?

These are old tactics being employed using modern techniques. Hold up a strawman, tell the people that the strawman is responsible for all their woes, and let the people beat the crap out of the strawman. It's all to take focus off the real problem, the uber wealthy and their unearned, unethical, and unbelievably selfish manipulation of our society.

19 hours ago, Engineeer said:

Keeping me at a disadvantage won't do you any favors in the long run. 

I like this part, for a T-shirt or a tombstone. The rest sounds like your microphone wasn't working at the start the joke.

1 hour ago, nec209 said:

So most countries have liberal and conservative parties but in the US the conservative party has been moving more to right with the neo con and fascism views. I remember when Bush was in power he was painted has fascism and hard core conservative. But today he would be a liberal compared to Trump and where GOP is today. When you look at Trump and Ron Desantis you see how party has moved more to right.

There are over a dozen warning signs of fascism, and most can be spun in the fascist's favor. For instance, when Trump banned travel from Muslim countries under the guise of protecting the nation from terrorists entering the country, many applauded him. In actuality what he did was unconstitutional and set a precedent for tossing out our democratic republic values, something that's on the list of warning signs of fascism. 

1 hour ago, nec209 said:

So what is driving this move to right? And why are the politicians more crazy like why can’t you have politicians with Trump views but speak like Bush than a third grader and more crazy like. Why is it that moving more to the right is losing the ability to speak and more crazy like?

Extremists, by their very nature, tend to go all out. They talk passionately to anyone who will listen, they get the signatures necessary, they run for office, they get elected. Unfortunately, extremist politicians don't care about representing their constituents. They have agendas instead.

1 hour ago, nec209 said:

There is even some liberals hoping Ron Desantis would win over Trump because of the similar views but he less crazy like and speaks better. But again in 10 to 15 years from now Trump would be very liberal because the GOP would move even more to right than where it is today.

If the GOP gains control of the White House and Congress in 2024, Americans won't need to worry about representative voting in 10 years. 

1 hour ago, nec209 said:

The liberals have also moved more to left on identity politics and social issues but still being same on economic issues with some even moving more to right on economic issues.

I'm not a big fan at all of the liberal/conservative labels. I think the real factor here is corporate power, which has methodologies for dealing with whatever label we choose to put on something. Right now, there's no incentives for the uber-wealthy to do anything other than sit on tons of cash while making the most profit ever, and get ready to gobble when others fail.

1 hour ago, nec209 said:

The liberals don’t look good has in the US now is identity politics and more left on social issues possible pushing centrist to right conservatives more to the alt right.

What exactly is it about identity politics and social issues that make you think liberal policies are bad for them? In a representative democracy, don't you think the government owes something to the citizens who drive the economy, make up its military, and obey the country's laws? What is so awful about defending social spending that it would drive you to vote for a fascist? 

DienHuzen has been banned. Thank you for showing us your hate agenda so early on, you barely wasted any of our time at all.

33 minutes ago, DienHuzen said:

stupid faggot i am real deal,

On 11/11/2023 at 8:04 PM, Chris Sawatsky said:

Everything I read suggests that the Universe is expanding outward in every possible direction at the same time and began to do this approximately 13.4 Billion years ago

You're still hung up on what expansion means. You say "outward", but what does that really mean when the entire universe is expanding? To move outward, you need to do that relative to something, but the universe isn't a ball floating in nothingness. It's all there is, it's everything. I think you're tricking your mind into thinking of it like a balloon that has an outer edge, expanding into some other space. It's easy to do, since there's nothing else in our experience quite like it. 

On 11/11/2023 at 9:18 PM, Chris Sawatsky said:

Instead of maintaining hateful, useless ideals and practices that DO NOT WORK unless a threat of some sort exists in the persons mind or they are convinced what they feel is wrong.

Wait, are you describing religion? This is exactly the way I feel about the Abrahamic religions, that they've been a poison to our existence because they pretend to help when they mostly hurt.

29 minutes ago, ChildOfTheAncientOfDays said:

Reality is defined as physicality, matter and energy. “Nothingness” or “emptiness” is NOT reality because it has no bearing on it, we can’t measure an amount of physical “space” or “time”, because they’re not physical objects, physical “realities”. They’re the absence of such. Literal “space” has no effect on space. Not a surprise that ‘nothingness’ has not effect on nothingness.

I'm not sure why you think this. If I take a cubic meter of space that has no molecules of anything inside of it, you think it's outside reality? Just because a region of space has nothing in it, it still exists. And we can easily measure spacetime, and do it every day (meet me for lunch at noon tomorrow on the 1st level of the Eiffel Tower). They aren't physical objects, but they are real representations of the geometry of our universe (3 spatial dimensions, 1 temporal), so your definition lacks the degree of precision necessary to discuss this meaningfully. Thinking of space as "nothingness" isn't helpful, because it's NOT nothing (energy in any point in space still has a non-zero value). Even if a region of space has no matter in it, matter COULD pass through it, so it has to exist. The laws of physics still exist there.

1 hour ago, Chris Sawatsky said:

If I had a science degree and had years of experience getting grants to do research and becoming famous in the related industries, I would not except discoveries that proved my past published theories incorrect. In fact I would probably work hard to discredit the sources and go into denial because everything I have done since publishing said theory is based on this theory being correct. 

This would make you extremely unethical.

And fortunately, science has natural safeguards in place. People can check someone else's math, and experiments confirm when something works. It doesn't matter that you don't accept discoveries that show you past work to be wrong, because the science community will. Attacking the source rather than the science is a logical fallacy, and most scientists are trained to spot such. 

1 hour ago, Chris Sawatsky said:

Archeology as a whole is my evidence.

I'm not interested in wading through the whole discipline to find the part you're talking about. It would be great if you could be specific.

1 hour ago, Chris Sawatsky said:

Did you know that most of the worlds petrified wood is in Northern Africa?

And the correlation to humans is what?

1 hour ago, Chris Sawatsky said:

How about humanoid remains that are the same age and of the oldest discovered remnants of stages of human evolution before Homo Sapiens ? 

What about them? What's the point you're trying to make here?

10 hours ago, Thenudist said:

nothing explicit about these photos

57 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

I used to have these kinds of wild thoughts before I learnt about this subject. 

I think this is the way it is with most any subject. Before we learn, we make guesses using only what we know. Those guesses live in the gaps in our knowledge, and get forced out as we learn more and more about a subject.

How do we test for multiple universes? If we can't, is it really a theory?

Besides parallel universes, does the Flash ever address the shockwave running that fast would create in front of him? If the air can't get out of his way fast enough, it's going to pile up and heat up and explode as he pushes through it.

1 hour ago, ChildOfTheAncientOfDays said:

My claim is that Light and Reality are co-dependent concepts.

You need to define "Reality". And if capital L Light is different from regular light, you need to define that as well. Light is a physical thing, and I've never heard a decent scientific definition of "reality". I don't think science tries to describe "reality", but rather it describes what we observe. Is that reality? How can we be certain? Why do so many disagree about what is "real"?

"Reality", the way you talk about it, seems very subjective, and I try to remove as much subjectivity as possible when considering any explanation.

12 hours ago, Alfred001 said:

If you're gonna talk shit then you should have the balls to debate and back it up, otherwise stfu punk.

EDIT: Yeah, downvote my post, but UNDER NO CONDITIONS engage, pussy 😄 You know it wouldn't go well for you.

6 minutes ago, ChildOfTheAncientOfDays said:

That the calculation and understanding of the speed of Light is wrong.