Phi for All

Moderator NoteNONE of the comments have been aimed at you personally. That would be against the rules. We attack ideas here, not people. You may have wrapped yourself too tightly in your idea so it seems personal to you, but that's not the case. Asking you for a definition when yours doesn't match isn't about you, it's about the word you used. Telling you your explanation is "word salad" isn't about you, it's about the explanation. If someone tells you your explanation is "rambling", it's not a personal attack. Your explanation needs work, not you. Above all, being wrong about something in science has NOTHING to do with your personal integrity. I hope that makes sense to you. We don't know you enough to make it personal.

Not this week. I would insist on dealing with this at the beach. Not as memorable during the day. Closest I've come lately is a bit of sulphur hexaflouride in my right eye. Venting by throwing the chair and charger out into the yard, thus isolating it. Other than the calm part, I think I nailed it.

Billy.

Varini Pietro has been banned for refusing calls for clarity regarding their speculative thread. We can't discuss it if you're not willing to help us understand.

Quite. Moderator Note Best of luck elsewhere. There are quite a few science discussion sites with few rules and no moderation, but this isn't one of them.

I guess you're welcome? It wasn't enough for discussion, obviously, so I requested a bit more, for which you're giving me a LOT of pushback. You seem ultra-sensitive about the subject, too much so for an objective approach, imo. I'm so sorry you can't understand why we're skeptical about a new member joining to reformulate mainstream science. I sense you've been given some criticism about this before. What I shared was a moderator request for more clarity, NOT my opinion. We've already uncovered some misleading (your words) information, so what is your real objection here? You requested critical feedback, and some of the members think that should start with a better understanding of your concept. Is that really difficult? Then discussion about it is pointless, yes? Why do we bother with constructive criticism if you don't care? Why are you making such a big deal about clarity? Did someone accuse you of attacking them? And obviously, since there were calls for more information and explanation, your overview wasn't as clear as you think. You understand it because you've been working on this for a while. We're TRYING to understand, but we're getting a great deal of pushback. EVERYTHING posted here so far has been related to your work. We're trying to understand it, and you aren't helping to make your explanation clear. Can you do better, please?

Moderator Note Our rules require that discussion takes place here in the open, without links or other elements that would take members offsite or to places we don't know and trust (links are usually done for supportive evidence, of course). We get an awful lot of new folks wanting us to visit their sites too, but we just want to talk about science. If you can provide an overview of your concept, it would be much appreciated. Settle down, please, nobody is threatening anybody here. We attack ideas, not people. If your reference is to the quantum electrodynamic vacuum, then perhaps you can forgive studiot for requesting some clarity?

I honestly don't think I'd be reasonable if this happened to me. 2-foot flame jets coming out of my charger on the seat next to me definitely triggers my male see-a-fire-put-it-out genes. I might be able to stop myself from stomping on it, after I'd tossed the whole chair in the yard.

So, in the OP scenario, the best thing to do is let the chair burn and avoid a possible explosion. I think I'd still try to pick up the whole chair and put it somewhere it can't catch anything else on fire.

Does it seem like dropping it to the ground or some other kind of impact could make it actually explode, as in the OP?

Wow, it would be really difficult NOT to knock the unit off the chair as a first reaction. It's on fire, and you know the least of what will happen if you just run away without robbing the flame of at least some fuel. And I'm not sure it's the wrong reaction. If it doesn't explode right off the bat, I don't think a 2-foot drop will change the flame to a boom. I agree with the people first rule, but fires can harm people too. I think your friend did the right thing.

Then you aren't reading them. Just because you didn't agree with the explanation doesn't mean it wasn't explained. And the explanations are as varied as the membership. You seem to get a few downvotes because you favor brevity over substance, and your responses are often vague or cryptic because of it. Sohan's liberal use of AI and memes, along with some responses to those posts that bordered on personal attacks earned them quite a few DVs. The system originally helped us identify members who were pushing fringe concepts but weren't taking any criticism on board. People with negative rep scores were the quacks who wouldn't listen to reason. It's changed over time to snare those who make socially questionable comments or have an obvious attitude towards discussion topics as well. The rule of thumb is still to attack ideas and not people.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Clarity is important in discussion. You observed that people SECRETLY believe something? How does this work? And the simplest way to test this can't be done because people are deceptive? How convenient for the assertions you're making. In what way is this approach "scientific"? How do you justify any religion using standard methodology?

This would be trivially proven or disproven with a simple poll. How can "most inhabitants of Earth harbor this notion" when most aren't human? And how can most humans think this way when only 30% are Christian? If you're talking about all gods, then again it would be trivial to devise a poll to find out if your idea has merit. I'm not sure what makes you think you know what all these "inhabitants" secretly believe. This is a science discussion forum, and the words you use have meaning here.

But she prefers to ask her questions like, "Eva, can I see bees in a cave?"

To add to the WTF?! levels, yesterday he told reporters that people shouldn't take medical advice from him, the Health & Human Services Secretary. PBS NewsWATCH: Health Secretary RFK Jr. says he doesn't think peo...Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Wednesday that he doesn’t “think people should be taking advice — medical advice — from me.”

She prefers numbers that are never odd or even.

If we wanted to skew the meaning of both emotions, I suppose. Personally, I find a great deal of difference between being satisfied and being elated. I think, in this context, happiness is either a byproduct of living or it's a property of sentience. If it's simply an emotion, how healthy is it to want it all the time? Would we be able to recognize that we're happy if we never knew sad?

She drives a racecar, right, and usually gets top spot? Was it a car or a cat I saw? Anyway, her motto is "Step on no pets".

I don't think happiness is the goal. The goal is doing things and being with others you enjoy. There will be times when you realize just how happy this makes you, but that wasn't the goal. The goal is still doing things and being with others you enjoy. Does that make sense? I think you can search for things and people you enjoy, but you can't search for happiness. Perhaps happiness is a property of humans, rather than something to be found elsewhere?

Moderator Note You have started a new thread about this, without the context of the original. In the future, there is a Quote link at the bottom of each post that lets you comment on another's post. If you can find the original post, please copy/paste your reply to that. I'm going to close this one. Thanks and welcome.

We're a science discussion forum, so this seems odd. If we can't discuss your idea, why did you come here to ask about it?

Who are hopefully getting the membership they deserve.

Moderator NoteI removed the link you had because we don't know you and this doesn't make much sense, so I was a bit suspicious. Long stick ON a stone? What does "the physics virtual" mean? Why can't a stick on a stone lift a lighter object? I don't think you've adequately explained why this is impossible. And why are you talking about virtual solutions to a physics problem with sticks and stones? Which equations are wrong?

I think you're equating wealth with brains. Both Elon and Trump are extremely corrupt. He looks like an idiot on the news shows YOU watch?! Wow! The mainstream press went after Biden on senility, but they pretty much leaves TFG alone every time he talks like an idiot. They must think it makes them look bad to criticize someone who obviously isn't very smart. The problem is you seem to be OK with this.