Phi for All

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.

Tektōn is the Greek word interpreted as "carpenter", but it can also mean "builder" or "laborer". 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Looks like systemic suppression to me.

Has anyone mentioned the Ben Gurion Canal Project, that ends up just a little north of the Gaza Strip on the Med? They started about a year ago, and it will compete with the Suez Canal (which made Egypt almost US$8B last year). They'll be able to handle a LOT more ships with less waiting time, but only if they can guarantee the safety of those crossing. 

15 hours ago, Chris Sawatsky said:

Does evolution have a direction?

Primarily evolution is the development of psychological, physical and spiritual coping mechanisms. For this reply spirituality is defined as positive or negative energy that is created when we think and act. As all actions are born in thought, either conscious or unconscious the two combined sum up the nature of the action and thought that proceeded said action. Observing other life forms and studying the most successful (Ants, termites, bees and hornets) I believe evolution does not have a "Direction" per se but rather a purpose which is to enable life to overcome anything that prevents us from living our full lives and creating offspring to succeed us. It seems that the next phase of evolution for humanity is to come together and focus our energies on a mutually beneficial goal. The most obvious is space travel and the inhabitation of other planets that are conducive to life. We have considered heaven to be up in the sky, our destination if we are "Good" and a paradise that lasts forever. Hell is deep under ground, made of burning sulfur and fire and it is our destination if we are "Bad". In an estimated 4 billion years from now it is said that our star will run out of Hydrogen, Helium and other light elements, begin burning heavier elements and becoming hotter and hotter until it goes Supernova. Long before this our planet will become much too hot for life so between now and then the temperature will slowly rise and our environment will change with it becoming somewhat like Venus. If humanity does not find another planet that is suitable for life, develop a strategy to collect samples of life on earth to transplant on other planets and invent ways and means to travel to said planet with all surviving, our fate is sealed. The only way this is even remotely possible is if Humanity sheds its ignorance and selfishness and begins living like a "Superorganism" like ants and termites. All coming together and focusing our time and energies on a mutually beneficial goal that is broken down into smaller, more manageable goals that are each worked on by subgroups that are educated or familiar with the subjects i.e. Biology, Engineering, etc. This goal and certain sub-goals will span generations so the BIG PICTURE must be the focus. Selfishness and other human traits must be avoided and the TRUTH must be honored. Theories, Beliefs and Concepts like Race and Male Superiority over Woman must be overcome. All evidence suggests that all human beings are more than 99% identical as people develop according to the environment they evolve in. Africans moved from North Africa to the equator and developed darker pigment in their skin to shield them from excess solar radiation. Caucasians moved north and became lighter skinned to allow what little skin was exposed to absorb sunlight needed to process certain vitamins and minerals. Asians went east and lived in a flat frozen area of the earth as an ice age was coming to the end. Asians, Inuit and North American Natives are all of the same group. As time went on and the earth warmed people moved around more freely and began cross breeding and forming most of the other cultures alive today. 

You have a LOT of good ideas here, but you have a LOT of misinformation as well. Much of it has nothing to do with evolution. 

It's been pointed out that our sun will not become a supernova (too small). Do you have any evidence that humans originated in northern Africa? This article shows it's more likely we began in southern Africa. Also, all human skin plays a balancing game between vitamin D and folate, not just darker or lighter skin. Not sure where you're going to find evidence of your "hell below" concept, since there isn't any, and it's never good to mix the natural world with the supernatural. I agree that humanity needs more cooperation and less competition, and that more focus on long-term goals is needed, but I think there are so many of us that we can focus on more than just one thing. Also, be careful of TRUTH. It seems like an objective goal, but nothing is more subjective than what people think is TRUTH. It's a lie rather than any kind of truth, and you're better served looking for the best supported explanations for various phenomena.

15 hours ago, julius2 said:

If there was "matter" before the Big Bang and it did not get completely destroyed by the Big Bang, it would still be out there right? I am guessing it would be "between the molecules" (undetected).

It's not meaningful to talk about anything prior to a split second after the BB started. As I understand it, when we calculate backwards to that point using observable phenomena, it shows us that all matter, all the galaxies, coalesce into an extremely dense and extremely hot point. The whole universe then expanded suddenly until there was enough space that the matter could separate from itself and cool, leaving the universe fairly homogenous and isotropic. There's no way to tell how the matter was configured before that.

Imagine if you built some fantastic, complicated structure out of steel, but then compressed it down until it was just a white-hot ball of metal, and you can see how you'll never know what it used to look like just by examining the ball. There is no "between the molecules" except for space. Enough heat and pressure can squeeze the space out, and even cause electrons and neutrons to degenerate.

One temporal dimension (time), and three spatial dimensions (length, width, height) combined to make a stable configuration for our universe. As far as we know, spacetime started at the BB. You can guess what happened before, but it's just a guess and can't be falsified, so it's not science.

Isn't it ironic that belief in gods lets people judge each other, which isn't enlightened, doesn't show understanding, kindness, or truth, and is in fact ugly rather than beautiful?

1 hour ago, julius2 said:

Time (the ages of time), is acting in the background in this world.

I'm having trouble making sense of this. What are "the ages of time"? What is "the background in this world"?

Are you familiar with the concept of spacetime, where the temporal dimension of time is inextricably linked to the three spatial dimensions we experience?

On 10/29/2023 at 6:17 AM, julius2 said:

But I propose the evolution was quick helped along by a "substance" not yet discovered by scientists. This would explain why we have not been able to find fossils showing the GRADUAL changes which is absurd.

Yet we see evolutionary changes happening and our explanations don't seem to need this substance you've made up. And we see plenty of fossils showing gradual changes in various species, so I think you've picked up some very bad information along  the way somehow. 

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

Ghee is supposedly better f or you than the solid state butter.

Especially if you have problems with lactose. The lack of milk solids also means it can be hotter than butter without burning, which makes it healthier.

I have a sandwich bread recipe that's fairly yeasty, takes some kneading, and it starts in a cold oven. I recall something about getting a more even bake (cooked through to the middle) and a nice, tight crumb when the dough and oven come to temp together. That recipe also uses a pan of hot water beneath the loaves for a nice outer texture. It doesn't take long to proof the dough, as CharonY mentions, but I always make myself wait at least half an hour, but no more than an hour.

My country bread recipes use a dutch oven, and that thing needs to be super hot to start. They say to preheat the cast iron to 450F for AN HOUR, but I only do about 20 minutes and it works just fine (seems wasteful to have an empty baking dish in there for an hour). Those breads tend not to have much yeast, more water, take about five hours to proof, and have a more open, airier crumb.