Phi for All

CuriosOne has been banned, not for poor spelling, but for rejecting all attempts to help them learn. Being actually "curious" would have made a big difference.

! Moderator Note Best of luck elsewhere with THAT!

! Moderator Note This is NOT the thread to challenge well-established science. If you have the evidence to support your counter-concepts, post them in a new Speculations thread . It's off-topic here.

This is very personally insulting. I'm quite frankly tired of your whining and cancerous attempts to justify your own lazy incredulity. So many people have gone out of their way to help you see past your own mental barriers to learning, and now you call it all lies. You take all their hard work and compassion for a fellow learner and piss all over it. I think you've been given enough slack to show you don't appreciate any of it. It's quite clear you got EXACTLY the answer you were asking for, only you don't like it because it's clear you made a mistake. I appreciate the grace and style others have displayed in response to your childish foot-stomping, but it's clear no amount of patience can breach your carefully constructed palace of ignorance. Best of luck elsewhere, please don't waste any more of our time.

! Moderator Note Off-topic posts have been split to here:

! Moderator Note I'm feeling generous in the New Year, so I've moved this to Speculations (even though I can't imagine how the OP can be defended reasonably). Please support your assertions with evidence, and good luck. I'll give you two whole pages to persuade the membership your idea has merit. You get three more posts on your first day (automatic spam protection), so make them count.

I think you've rendered the term "purpose" meaningless by equating it with "fulfills a function within a system". Most things fulfill multiple functions, but their purpose is usually something more overarching. People can determine their purpose, but a planet is just a stage for an environment, which may or may not support life. It can fulfill many functions, but it has no purpose the way I think that's defined. As joigus said, purpose is more of an emergent property assigned by intelligence to set goals. Planets have no purpose in that sense.

Not if they're twice as big as Jupiter, where the gravity might not support the formation of skeletal structures. And what about water-covered planets and gas giants?

I feel this way about all the adjustable stuff in cars that only I am going to drive. If I'm going to adjust it once and then leave it, it seems like an expensive waste of mechanics. Pretty sure the gaming chair is the same way, completely adjustable so you can customize it to your size. I don't think anyone is making chairs with specific configurations you can't change. For one, when you spend that kind of money, the chair is going to last and your body may change over time. For two, our desk/chair arrangements are rarely as static as our cars, and you may need to adjust your chair for many reasons.

I look at most things as tools. If you use a tool a LOT, or if it matters a LOT that it does certain things very well, you'll never be sorry for getting the best you can afford. Some tools are fairly universal, such as beds and shoes, and I ALWAYS recommend getting the best available. Getting good sleep and being able to walk/stand comfortably really improve the quality of life. I would add an office chair to that list if you spend a great deal of time at your desk. In that regard, it's like a good bed because you use it for so much of the day. I would spend the extra for the gaming chair. It's only 2X the price of the one at the local furniture store, but I'll bet it'll last 3X longer and be 10X more comfortable.

Bad inference, since there are so many lifeless planets. And don't you think you have it backwards wrt suns? It's not their "purpose" to provide heat. They radiate a LOT of it due to the enormous pressure of gravity, and life takes advantage of it, but only because life is better at managing heat from the sun than non-living matter.

That's exactly what I'm telling you. NO ONE CAN KNOW. Therefore, trying to guess or make it fit your "algorithm" or your "crossword" is NOT science. I don't know why you think it would be. You're guessing about things nobody can know and claiming you're right. ! Moderator Note This can't stay in the mainstream sections, Yusef, so I'm going to move it. You'll never be able to adequately support this as a Speculation. It's not even interesting as something for the Lounge. We're a science discussion forum, and you can't adequately support your idea nor defend the unscientific assertions you make. Perhaps some more study is required before you can explain your idea in a way that might persuade others that you have a point.

AlexandrKushnirtshuk has been suspended for a week for bad faith arguments, conspiracy, and soapboxing about how wrong science is about the size of the universe.

! Moderator Note I warned you about using ignorance to support more ignorance. Go away until next year. After that, bring some science or stay away.

! Moderator Note Now this is getting insulting. Don't post any more ideas like this, this is a SCIENCE DISCUSSION FORUM. Please find someplace else to post stuff like this. You obviously know NOTHING about these subjects, yet think you can solve the problems inherent to them. PLEASE study more and guess less, and learn about the things you are interested in. Learn so you can apply that learning in meaningful ways.

! Moderator Note You need to provide the derivation of your equation in your next post, or the thread will be closed. The membership deserve to know if you aren't arguing in good faith.

! Moderator Note You're welcome. Now please return the favor and answer some of the questions posed to you. They were asked specifically to challenge the ideas you've put forth, and they'll show where you've gone wrong, but only if you take the time to cooperate with the members who are taking their time to help you, and answer the questions. Please.

I was hoping they'd spin Bernie Sanders as the Eisenhower candidate. I still think he'd be a better guy to have in charge right now. Ike actually ticks a LOT of the boxes most modern Dems consider important, like reduction of military spending, higher taxes on the wealthy and a progressive rate that encourages investment rather than sitting on cash, and a deeper investment in public works and programs.

Go all the way back to Eisenhower and you can sign me up too. How bizarre is it that Ike's policies are now considered leftist radical fantasies by GOP leadership?

! Moderator Note This is NOT a scientific speculation, so I'm moving it to the Lounge, since I think your first suggestion is fairly standard, and the second is so weird that someone might want to ask you questions.

I totally agree, and I think the most obvious starting place for bi-partisan conservative agendas is with infrastructure. Personally, I tend to be VERY conservative wrt roads and structure maintenance, and feel our best value is in spending small amounts continuously to keep things in good shape, rather than letting things fall apart before we're forced to fix them at emergency rates. I like letting asphalt cure properly to ensure long life as opposed to the convenience of driving on it the day it's put down. Clean water and air are actually conservative concepts imo (or used to be), something very basic to life in any society, and one that's more easily accomplished publicly than by multiple individual attempts. But current Republicans don't seem to see it this way. Anything that regulates a business to tell them not to pollute gets voted down. I think businesses have too much influence over their employees, so I think the Dems should help fix that. Perhaps if health insurance wasn't tied to employers, folks could vote to help themselves without feeling like they might lose their job AND their insurance.

You should contact one of the companies that manufacture them, and let us know what you find out. But don't bother if you're just trying to promote a particular company. We're a science discussion site, and we don't allow advertising, but we're extremely interested in the technology and would love to discuss it with you.

! Moderator Note Enough! We ask you to clarify what you're talking about and support it adequately, yet every new post makes everything less clear. It seems clear you can't understand the explanations the other members are giving you because you can't see beyond your own concepts. Your style of argument is polluted with conspiracy fallacies, and somehow you think questions you can't answer but also can't be bothered to research properly are interesting and meaningful. You clearly are not ready for the type of reasoning science requires. Please don't post any more threads where you suspect cosmology of some kind of intellectual coverup. This is a place of knowledge and learning, not pitchforks and leeches and ignorant fears. We wish you well, but you don't listen, and that's required in discussion. Maybe you should start a blog somewhere? If you stay, please read more than you post. You have a LOT to unlearn. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note Your apology for criticizing the "snide remarks" of the members trying to help you see this is accepted.

I don't understand how ANYTHING you write relates to anything else you write. You keep blending your religion into the science you want to discuss. You mention ideas you had when you were young that have nothing to do with the subject of the thread. I think you must realize by now that we can't know anything about the universe before the BB. I don't know what you mean when you talk about crosswords and ancient scientists. It might be a language barrier, or it may be that you are misunderstanding something you've read, but I can't discuss this with you if I don't know what you're talking about. Sorry, Yusef.