Phi for All

At first glance maybe, but it's clear that consumers simply need to put more dots on their phone to improve the protection. Also a couple on their hands, some on their ears, and perhaps dot a few other bits they'd like to keep from getting burnt or falling off. 🙄 I would pay for an app that tracked people around me who had these dots. Like Harry Potter's Maruader's Map, I could use it to avoid them (or seek them out if I have something to sell).

Symmetry would suggest that if our births are not ours to decide, then our deaths should be treated the same way. Many would claim both of these statements to be common sense, yet they're completely opposed. Just as we have an "age of consent", below which one is assumed to be incapable of deciding to explore the responsibilities involved in sexual intercourse, perhaps we need an "age of resignation", below which one is assumed to be incapable of deciding to end their life. I would suggest somewhere in the 150-200 year range.

Are you sure that better information or reasoning will work? In my experience, this type of behavior signals that her conclusions were reached emotionally rather than reasonably. Confirmation bias almost ensures that a reasoned approach will be met with increasing and eternal skepticism. It could be that only another emotional stance can supplant her current one (the way some anti-vax stances were supplanted by fear of COVID-19). You'll get the responses you're looking for today (it looks like you're at the first day anti-spamming security limit of 5 posts), but I can also point out that much of that "general healthy lifestyle" mentality ignores how a modern society needs to look at population density and immunology. It isn't feasible for everyone on the planet to follow the same lifestyles, and we need the opportunities for advancement a dense culture provides, so overcoming this dangerous ignorance about our immune systems is important. Our intelligence sets us apart from other animals, and sometimes the best use of it is to overcome our animal urges and responses.

We've noticed this phenomenon over the years, and we're very glad you came here for help. You had SOME science knowledge, you read more, and something in the mainstream explanation doesn't make sense to you. What you should have done was study the mainstream science and ask questions until the light bulb came on. What you did instead was use that marvelous brain of yours to make stuff up. When you do that, you're connecting concepts using limited knowledge, only the stuff you know, so of course it MAKES PERFECT SENSE -- but only to you. As I said, very glad you came here. Thinking about the shape of the universe is extremely non-intuitive, and many folks make the mistake of thinking it's expanding INTO something else. Science is NOT interested in the truth, actually, since people tend to make up their own truths. Science is interested in the best current explanations, something we can add to as new information becomes available.

Or at least agreeing to lead them on the march on the Capitol?

! Moderator Note It's clear, after 3 pages, that improving your idea won't help it pass our criteria for a speculative concept. You can't explain it properly so anyone else can understand, and you don't seem to acknowledge the lack of methodology that would make your concept possible. Too much magic, not enough science. Thanks to all (especially Ghideon) who took the time to help. I'm closing this since it doesn't meet the rules requirements for the Speculations section. Please don't bring this subject up again on this site.

! Moderator Note But you're not using logic (which is for maths and philosophy, not physics), you're using "This makes more sense to me because I don't understand the mainstream explanation". You need to support your ideas without using your ideas if you're going to do science. You need to remove your own subjective biases as much as possible. How about you ask some questions about what you're unsure of instead of claiming science is wrong? We have some excellent members willing to help if you just take advantage of their expertise. Perhaps you can start by addressing Markus Hanke's observations regarding electric forces and the spacetime continuum?

You're seriously using my quote as an example of duplicitousness in my stance?! Are you saying these courageous patriots were just challenging the unjust laws that protect our national institutions, by arming themselves and breaking into the Capitol building? That's a pretty slimy way to argue, if you don't mind my pointing it out, MigL.

I get this every once in a while. I imagine the system gets a little gassy sometimes, rather than forgetful.

You're hoping the US Congress will choose to break the Elder Wand? Many won't even discuss term limits.

! Moderator Note Olorin, it's against our rules for you to assume your unevidenced, non-mainstream aether concept is a valid argument in the mainstream sections. Either open up a thread defending your idea in Speculations, or stop posting about it. You can't use these ideas in discussion until they're supported.

! Moderator Note A couple of off-topic posts were split to Trash here. Please don't mix religious outlooks in with science discussions, and it's NEVER all right to bring up paranoid conspiracy here.

An astrophysicist I know who recently moved to the US from South Africa says this is exactly how it is back home, every election. What did Trump call places like that?

Frogton has been banned for bad faith arguments and promoting their own agenda. This is a science discussion forum, folks.

! Moderator Note What blog?

Yusef has been banned, since they could not keep from preaching and claiming their religious ideas are scientifically "proven".

! Moderator Note NO! You proved nothing like this. Preaching is bad enough, but lies like this can't be tolerated. Please find somewhere else to post crap like this.

If FOX News and other conservative outlets aren't pointing out that Republicans in charge have been watching for exactly the things the president claims have happened, how can viewers be expected to add that fact to their reasoning? The "information" they're basing their opinions on is incomplete or misleading. A reasoned argument is almost automatically a properly informed one, isn't it? I can't help but think that a Walter Cronkite-era newsperson, someone required by law to inform the public, would be pointing out that, if the president's allegations were true, conservative paranoia about voter fraud turned out to be about as effective as an unarmed, minimum wage, teenage night guard at the warehouse. A newscaster not focused on entertainment could point out how silly it is to think the GOP auditors are so dim-witted. Walter would have focused on the real fraud being committed, I think.

But look at how many Republicans are convinced that SOMETHING fraudulent happened under the very noses of their own supposedly vigilant party? I don't much care how they think politically, but this is a breakdown of reasoning skills, and I think it's due in part to wishful thinking, but mostly due to all the idiotic claims that have been repeated and allowed to avoid assessment by a media uninterested in actually informing the public.

What we have now is the knowledge that somehow organic matter started from inorganic matter in the absence of a biological process. That's equivalent to saying, "Your ancestors got to this continent by traveling". We know that's how it had to be, there's no other way we can imagine it happening, but we don't know exactly how it was done. And because of this I understand where beecee is coming from. Hard to imagine life always existing, so it had to come from non-life at some point.

Exactly, but that doesn't make a theory fact. Theory needs to be open to new information. I think of facts as "answers", and we tend to stop looking if we think we've found an answer. Our best current explanations regarding the fact of evolution are organized as the theory. It's a technical distinction, but I think an important one. All that said, I have to agree that, whether or not Earth life forms started on Earth, a form of abiogenesis seems to be the only reasonable explanation for the step between inorganic and organic matter. Without a testable mechanism to repeat the process, I don't think we can think of abiogenesis as anything stronger than hypothesis.

I would say false. Evolution is a fact (we observe it and so can't deny it), and the Theory of Evolution describes the process. I don't think there's any need to elevate any theory to "fact" status. It implies that theory isn't strong enough when it certainly is, and we get to keep improving it if it stays a theory. I think it sends the wrong signal when we update "facts" based on new evidence. And welcome back!

Of course. Science doesn't look at tests like this in terms of success/failure so much as opportunities for improvement. Exposing weaknesses in trials is a good thing, and part of the engineering process. Better to know now than to discover this problem when the payload is valuable. I sure hope you aren't here to promote one private space company while trashing the others. That's inconsistent with our purpose.

You lost me on this part. Something about so many mistakes....

I'll talk to you, joigus! I think Steg means "waste" instead of "waist", and "intact" instead of "intake". By surge, I assumed an increased rate of something, likely power.