Phi for All

! Moderator Note The way you "explain" is to simply repeat your misinformed concepts over and over, without answering the folks who are trying to show where you're wrong. You also don't bother with evidence, preferring to simply assert what you believe, without any support. You're not well disposed for discussion. You should probably stay with your blogs and YouTube channel for this kind of ignorant approach to a very rigorous discipline. You don't discuss well. If that doesn't change, and if you don't start supporting your ideas with evidence and stop with the hand-waving, I'm going to recommend your account be banned. Nobody seems to be able to have a conversation with you. This thread is closed because science.

! Moderator Note This is NOT the type of post we ever want to see here, even in the Religion section. This is more like blogging, and we're a discussion forum, specifically for scientific perspectives. Nobody here is interested in your version of god(s). No more posts like this, please.

Oooh, I had an idea not long ago about making a bowl-shape out of leaves from the yard and lacquered somehow. I thought they'd make cool birdbaths, if the resin or whatever didn't taint the water. I've thought about a super-slick plastic for snow shovels before, but you actually need the snow to stick JUST enough so it stays in the scoop as you begin to toss it, and only releases at the end of the throw. If the snow didn't stick AT ALL, I think you'd change the physics of manual snow removal.

! Moderator Note On the contrary, you haven't supported your ideas, nor have you adequately addressed the questions and concerns you've amassed in the last four pages, so you're still pushing against mainstream physics without evidence. You ignore the posts that refute or challenge your thinking, and you keep repeating points that were covered in the posts you ignored. That's not discussion, that's soapboxing, and it's not conducive to meaningful discussion. This thread is closed, and since you can't support the ideas within the boundaries of our rules, please don't bring it up again.

Perverting the Creator's Plan? I sure don't want to do THAT! Better stick with the ashes to ashes approach. Reduce, reuse, recycle!

I don't think your concept is compelling enough to motivate the casket consumer to spend the extra money. Why should they care what someone digs up thousands of years from now? I do think the name suggests a better motivation. What if you design the Walker's Casket with an escape hatch and a shovel, and market it to those who want a way out in case, you know, it's not what we thought? Walker's Caskets - Keeping Your Options Open.

Slippery liquid-infused porous surfaces (SLIPS): https://www.fastcompany.com/3044276/literally-nothing-will-stick-to-this-new-slippery-surface

I wanted to share this brief 9 minute video presentation, mainly for its unique approach regarding international space agreements, but it's also a great overview showing many of the various actors and institutions currently involved in trying to hammer out some rules regarding orbital debris and other problems facing us in the space around our planet. Very interesting research, and a crash course on what's happening in orbit.

I didn't get one either.

She may be a dirty, rotten spammer but she clearly has good taste in men. Must be targeting just the gorgeous ones.

! Moderator Note You have a limited grasp of language, obviously. iNow asked for the meaning of a phrase you used, which he quoted. You perverted that request into a definition for a single word. You display a LOT of intellectually dishonest behavior that's inconsistent with the purpose of this science discussion forum. Please take a 3 day break (we need it!) and decide if you wish to come back with a less dishonest attitude.

! Moderator Note This doesn't help to clarify your meaning, and is obviously condescending. If you don't start arguing in good faith, you'll get a suspension for this behavior.

! Moderator Note It's the only way where your assumptions are tested against experiment and observation in a methodical way. You assume your idea is consistent with many current approaches, yet you admit it's not correct. There's really no other way to keep you honest in your intellectual pursuit here. There are plenty of sites that will encourage WAGs and conclusion-jumping, but we aren't one of them. Rigor isn't impossible, just... hard. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note This has become agonizingly apparent. I told you we don't stoop to the intellectual dishonesty of conspiracy here at SFN. If you open any more rigor-free, unreasoned, bad-faith crap threads like this again, you're going to be instantly booted. I'm going to ask that you be put on a list of people who are pre-approved for banning on their next infraction. This is a science discussion forum. Conspiracy is expecting us to do all the digging into your mere suspicions while you do nothing but question. It's not going to happen here with you anymore.

! Moderator Note Please stay in your own thread in Speculations regarding your concept, and don't make any others about it until you've shown some meaningful support.

I read this morning that the CPAC theme for this year is "America Uncanceled", where they'll be addressing exactly this from a conservative perspective. Unfortunately, one of their guest speakers recently made an anti-Semitic remark in public, so they had to cancel him.

This is called "preaching" or "soapboxing", where you make a statement ("Your model says the universe came from nothing"), it gets refuted ("No, the LCDM model doesn't say ANYTHING about where the universe came from, it starts just after it began expanding"), and then you just keep repeating the wrong statement again over and over ("Yours has the former"). We can't discuss this if you're going to soapbox about it. Take your fingers out of your ears, please.

I thought so too. They even have the international symbol of a couple in bed under the covers:

I read that as Marketing 101-speak for "This will be expensive". Create the problem, highlight the problem, offer the only solution to the problem, and make sure your market looks beyond price to see value. I think the US market isn't ready for something called a "Walker's Casket". Too many seasons of zombie series on TV that refer to "walkers". Maybe instead of preserving memories, a Walker's Casket could guarantee that if the zombie apocalypse happens, nobody is getting out of one of these coffins?

I think we've already done better than simply leaving our bones for the future to find. Genetic mapping information for our entire genome has been available for many years, so the present plans are quite an improvement over excavating bones from the ground. I'm also very skeptical about the market for burial caskets. Many cultures already cremate their dead, and there are many environmental pressures to minimize the space we use for memorials.

! Moderator Note If you can't support the assertions in this thread, please don't start another on the same lines. Keep it all here, please.

No trash, unless it's CASH!

You're just being asked to show how your concept works in the case of say, diffraction, which may or may not show where the concept fails. That's not a predisposition to not accept something, it's more like cross-checking yourself, or using dimensional analysis on your equations. If it doesn't fail, that's a hurdle cleared, right?

An American classic:

! Moderator Note You can discuss the science here, but please avoid trying to advertise for business partners, or you'll be breaking our rules.