Phi for All

! 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.

! Moderator Note If you continue to use this conspiracy style of questioning, I'm going to shut this down. Why would anyone want to discuss this with you if you keep dodging and hinting at something you can't support? It's not a style that works well in discussion with others. You're simply calling something into question rather than actually trying to determine an explanation.

You didn't do anything in the past that changed your normal growth. But the past is another good example of something you can't change.

3 inches is about .00004734848 miles, .0000761999921971 kilometers, or 76200000000 picometers. But you've got that whole Sean Bean gorgeousness thing going on, so height isn't as much of an issue for you. Or maybe you just don't let it bother you because it's a shallow POV and you wouldn't want a woman that thought it was more important than, say, your heart and mind.

"There is no cannibalism in the British Navy, absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount...." -- Graham Chapman

Approximately .000000000000000008054346 light-years. But since it's an impossible thing to attempt, you can't be blamed for failing, right? So at least you've got that going for you. Which is nice.

I just realized that folk song is probably why I think of the progressive movement in "tool" terms, and why I hate it when people talk about using one way of thinking for everything. I just can't believe I didn't immediately think of Tevye like you did. OMG, you get earworms too?! It's a small world, after all. It's a small world, after all. It's a small world, after all. It's a small, small world!

Yours is MUCH better than mine. I've been bitcoining in the morning, bitcoining in the evening, bitcoining all over this land!

Why burden the living with the bodies of those past dead? Why not keep the memories alive and let the bodies recycle? Whatever that means, does it require dead bodies, or can you achieve the same goals without them? Can you honor a person's deeds and memories without having their dead body requiring eternal maintenance and space? Are you Walker, and are you trying to sell this to idea to rich folks by using us to advertise?

! Moderator Note You don't get to do this in ANY mainstream section. We have a Speculations section for challenges to mainstream science. Open a thread there if you think you can support your extraordinary claims, but don't hijack other threads with unsupported assertions. It's against our rules.

If you're making up terminology in a paper, the whole paper is a mistake. You can't claim "spin conjugate dynamics" is a real thing just because it's in a paper, so you also can't claim there are no mistakes in the paper just because the things it mentions can't be found elsewhere. "Not even wrong" refers to being completely off-base in your conclusions because you've misunderstood the criteria presented so badly. Like trying to define the physical behavior of an American football without taking it's shape into consideration, and instead use menial temperature, co-joined acceleration parameters, and prevailing chemical perspicacity as key factors. If I told you a football bounced the way it did because of those things, would you claim you couldn't find any mistakes with my explanation?

Efron is in the foreground, DeNiro a pace back, so the perspective makes him seem taller. Also, look at DeNiro's shoulders (uneven) and his tie (also uneven) which suggest he's slumping a bit to the side, probably because he has his left arm up around Pesci's shoulders. Want more? Efron's suit lines are showing a single color, which makes you look taller, and it's white as well so it stands out. DeNiro is breaking up his tailoring lines with an open coat and a lighter shirt, so his height looks broken up as well. And it's obvious that Efron's got about an inch and a half taller hair than DiNiro. Why, did you think there's a height conspiracy going on in Hollywood?