Phi for All

So, we should probably also stop thinking of sharks as something special, because humans can swim too? It's not a good argument. In a world of tool users, we ARE something special when it comes to using tools. We're the reigning champions by an enormous margin. It's high time we stopped ignoring other species, and started using our intellectual/engineering prowess to maintain the biodiversity that seems to be the key to life's abundance here. We are special in our way just like every other critter is special in theirs. Instead of focusing on making a few of us fabulously wealthy, we should spend our resources figuring out how not to squander our resources.

We have evidence of stone tools from over 3M years ago, but it's assumed that bone and wood were also used but left no evidence over so much time. In a nutshell, tools start out simple, like sticks for digging and rocks for breaking things open, vines for fastening things together. Dig enough holes and your stick becomes frayed at the end, making it a good tool for other things. Break enough bones for the marrow with rocks and you get slivers of the rock that are quite sharp, so now you have cutting tools. Even as hunter/gatherers, we were able to use tools to make our lives better. When we discovered agriculture and had even more time to innovate, our tool use became one of our defining traits. The combination of big brains, opposable thumbs, walking upright to free the hands, and a cooperative and communicative nature combined with an insatiable curiosity gives us the ability to make tools that help us overcome most of our weaknesses. I would drop the mention of gods when you're looking for information about the Paleolithic. Any scientific treatment will not be concerned with individual religions.

I never understood that. Implying that they took a shuttle to the surface of the planet worked on many episodes. You don't have to break up the action by actually showing them in the shuttlecraft. IIRC, it makes a copy of you at the new destination, based on a scan at the origin, then destroys/recycles the original once the copy is safely delivered.

Moderator Note This is a science DISCUSSION forum. We discuss ideas by asking about them, contrasting them with accepted concepts, and making reasoned observations and criticisms using evidence to either support or falsify such ideas. The person who had the idea then defends it based on the criticisms, hopefully adding evidence to support it. If they can't, they should be able to at least see the reasoning, and concede that the idea may be wrong. The whole idea behind discussion is that you may be right, and if you can use persuasive arguments to convince us, we can help you continue to firm the concept up. But it's more likely you're wrong, in which case we want to point out where, and see if you can fix it. If you can't, then your idea is wrong, like MOST ideas. Unfortunately, understanding is crucial to discussion. Right now, your threads start with your idea, then get requests for clarification, to which you respond with more parts of your idea, accompanied by unlabeled pictures that further confuse us. Talking this out with you isn't working, since you just keep repeating yourself and showing us more pictures, and most of us don't much like the style you find so fun. It's a bit crazy looking, and completely ruins the potential for understanding that the written word represents. I think you're old enough to know how unserious it looks when talking about serious subjects. I don't know if you'll get anything from discussion if you aren't willing to communicate your ideas without preaching or soapboxing. I just know that you aren't moving this speculative discussion along by explaining yourself to the other members. You had 4 pages for persuasion, so this is closed. Please don't bring it up again.

You're trying to explain something to me, but you don't care that your writing style is confusing and keeps me from understanding your content?! It does matter, my friend. I'd have the same problems if you were writing in Greek, but at least I could use a translator. I'm so sorry you don't understand the connection between "graphic character" and "content of my words". You're insisting that others try to understand you while you don't care that they find it difficult. It doesn't seem to be working well for you. In science, "as we know it" is backed up by mountains of evidence from observation and experimentation. It's not just a guess.

Do you write this way in Greek, or just English?

The " " marks mean that either you're quoting someone else or your apology is insincere, and the exclamation points, even one of them, are completely unnecessary unless you're shouting. I use allcaps on a single word in a sentence for emphasis as part of MY writing style. If you do it too much it's like listening to someone who is always yelling. It gets very tiring. And you shouldn't use the ellipsis at all when explaining something. It's like you're saying, "The best way to understand my idea is...???" Also, writing out the word for a number followed by that number in parenthesis, such as six(6), does the exact opposite of what you think it does. You aren't making yourself clearer. My criticism is on your English writing. I understand that it's not your first or only language. I'm just saying that if you've spent six years trying to explain your ideas to people, perhaps your English writing style is at least partly to blame.

How on Earth can we take it seriously when you can't write it seriously? Why do you use three exclamation points when one is enough? Why capitalize "but" and quote "no" and make "one" bold? Why are you misusing ellipses, the three dots? They literally denote an incomplete thought, or an omission of words, which is very bad when trying to explain anything. You're trying to explain something complicated, and you're not helping with all this distracting emphasis. If you think it's your style, it's a confusing one and doesn't help you at all.

This is the Brainteasers and Puzzles subsection. You're way off topic here.

I don't believe it. She has a brother named Mike Kim and a sister named Nell Allen.

NASA, moon, 1969. The PRIVATE sector, non-government actors looking to make a profit on the exploration of space, need to be stopped, imo. They want to tap into our pioneering spirit to exploit the rest of the universe. If we want to avoid all the terrible offplanet evil empire stories, we need better control than we have over the private sector on Earth before we allow them access to the wealth and destructive capacity of the solar system. Let's cure our own thoughtlessness before we allow trillionaires to park asteroids in orbit or establish colonies on other planets/moons.

Can we just discuss the concept? Is there any need to download this file? Did you write it? If not, we'd really rather hear your words on the subject. As if we're talking around a table, rather than listening to you lecture. Freedom of speech is a key ingredient to fighting oppressive, authoritarian regimes. Free speech MUST include speech critical of the government.

I don't think left and right are the way any scientist really thinks. They may seem conservative because mainstream science is technically rooted in tradition, but theory is all about being open minded enough to accept new evidence. The scientific method is usually cautious and rigid, as are most measurements and standards, yet scientists use them to assess new ideas and remodel old ones. I think science is a blend of what's held as traditionally and provisionally accepted and that which is made from new observations and data. Politically, the right is quite obviously avoiding any support for science that might cost donors a lot of money, such as climate change science or medical science that shows how badly our health suffers from the behavior of multinational corporations. All the evidence I've seen shows that billionaires on the right are the only minority we need to fear.

Moderator NoteFolks, we need to remove the personal attacks, and focus on attacking ideas you find shaky or invalid. Let's stop assuming we know what motivates someone else to post.

The Veritocrat has been banned for abusive posts and PMs after their speculative thread was shut down.

Moderator NoteSince you have no model and have fallen to insult and personal attacks, and because you don't seem to want to follow our rules on discussions in Speculations, I'm closing this. Don't bring it up again.

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.