Phi for All

! Moderator Note We aren't here to advertise your podcast. Please stop posting links to your YT channel.

! Moderator Note This is a big problem since this is a discussion forum. If you don't need us to talk things out, it means you're preaching. ! Moderator Note Preaching is against the rules, so this is false. See how reasoning works? This is what we value over your hand-waving beliefs and your god guesswork. You think you've found Truth, and you're going to ignore anybody who tries to help. We see this a lot, we tried to do what we could to help you, but it seems you're going to ignore all of that and stand against accumulated human knowledge. Have a good New Year, and I'm going to recommend to staff that you do so elsewhere. You need to find a place that isn't interested in facts, where you can make up your own truth anytime you want to.

! Moderator Note Then leave it out of any future discussion. We don't trust ignorantly-designed, make-believe explanations involving conspiracy. Evidence is needed, not guesswork involving photographs. This is your last chance to support this concept with something reasoned and trustworthy.

! Moderator Note Leave the religious aspect out of this discussion, please. We're in the Speculations section, so please use science.

Expansion happened EVERYWHERE, all at once. No center, nothing to expand into.

That's hardly fair. Nobody said thinking of the original question was wrong. And you ended the OP asking for a verdict: You asked if the line of thinking is wrong, and were given some great answers. Some of them you liked less than others.

What if you were told that your idea is flat out wrong because it's based on the incorrect assumption that cosmic expansion was like an explosion or shock wave originating from a point in space? We've heard of people who've spent the better part of a decade "researching" ideas based on bad knowledge, and we'd hate to see that happen to YOU. Accumulated mainstream human knowledge can save you years of wasted effort.

! Moderator Note Your duty, in this section, is to show this. Just saying it isn't enough, even when you add "completely" to imply extra impossibility. You can't argue against experiment by waving your hands. More rigor, please.

What part is giving you problems? This will help us help you.

! Moderator Note You can't use one speculation to support another. And don't advertise your threads in other threads, please. Stick to your topic, and try to keep everything non-mainstream in one place. You have a LOT of misunderstandings about science, and it's harder to help if it's spread all over the site. Thanks for understanding.

Thanks for the reminder. When BJ claimed tools were against nature, I just didn't want to deal with that level of ignorance, but he won't be the recipient of any learning from this thread, and it's important not to lend tacit support by saying nothing.

! Moderator Note It's also NOT in the spirit of the religion section of a science discussion forum. You are clearly preaching here, telling us there is only one way to think, and that's against the rules. If you want to make claims like that here, then you have to show evidence to support your ideas. More than hand waiving, more than yelling from a soapbox. Either stop making the claims or start supporting them. You have some people interested in talking to you, but they'll start reporting you if you don't follow the rules.

I thought you'd appreciate the metaphor for modern conservatism. I'm certainly glad nobody accused me of posting it in the wrong joke section. Actually, in this section, the rules are quite clear. You owe us several jokes, and it is THEY that must be funny, not you. I see your point. I have almost everything I need to calculate velocity in your case, given your wife's estimated glacial rate for your "butt".

A turtle gets mugged by two snails. When the cops show up, they ask him what happened, and the shaken turtle replies, "I don't know, it all happened so FAST!"

If Dems got a bonus for ethical treatment, this explanation might work, but they don't. You're holding them to standards where the Republicans get a pass to be pigs, but the best the Dems get is not being like them. I know, I know, you don't care either way because you don't have a horse in the blah, blah, blah. But your admiration of the OLD Republican ways has warped your standards for viewing the present Republicans, imo. Fighting fire with fire (to flip the lying-with-pigs perspective) is sometimes the best way to correct course. In the case of gerrymandering, do you really think the solution is for the Dems to be nicer?

! Moderator Note Since there's no science to discuss, and the OP can't be bothered with the rules, this thread is closed.

! Moderator Note You have a thread for this speculation, please keep everything there.

Happy Birthday, Yusef! I have NO IDEA what you want to discuss exactly. If it has to do with anything before the BB, how can we have evidence? I don't know what algorithm you're talking about. Are you talking about the image you posted? What do you mean by background? I understand, by using so many punctuation marks, that this is somehow important to you, but I wish you would clearly state what you wish to discuss. I understand it's an exciting day, but please stick to the Astronomy & Cosmology topic. Are you objecting to something about the BB or its theory? Are you claiming the BB has something to do with your kidneys? Perhaps just a sentence, maybe two, to help me understand?

! Moderator Note For this reason, staff sometimes lets some folks hammer on far past what we might allow ordinarily. Side-by-side examples of modern reasoning and Iron Age wishful thinking may hopefully speak to future skeptics. We appreciate the pain and suffering the membership is forced to bear in this regard.

I think it would be more probable to move the Earth gradually into an orbit that keeps us habitable but takes us out of the path of the sun's expansion.

"We're so sorry, Uncle Albert, we're so sorry if we caused you any pain!" --Linda & Paul McCartney

! Moderator Note Please summarize here. Members shouldn't be required to click any links in order to participate.

Do you seriously think your political opinions regarding the US isn't pre-neocon Republican? You're a Reagan/Thatcher admirer, I have a brother just like you. If you lived in the US, from your arguments you'd be old school conservative, ala John McCain. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not as impartial as you paint it.

You can't change a person, but you can change the way they act, so we should attack the behavior/arguments, not the people who have them. That's where Clinton made her mistake, imo. If you want the behavior to stop, don't make it part of the person. The behavior is deplorable.

Folks in rural areas don't have to be less educated (and duped because of it) to be disenfranchised by our current system. There are already fewer of them, they cost more wrt infrastructure and services, cleaning up air and water is more expensive, and they have the biggest disparity between the wealthy and the poor. This study suggests it's partly a density problem. 1% of extra density in a population translates to 4% higher wages. And in rural areas, most folks work for the big land owners doing un- or low-skilled jobs that don't require a lot of education, so there's little incentive. We need to network together without the assumption that one lifestyle is better or smarter than the other. We need the urban and rural parts of our country working together. I keep thinking that for every person who feels stuck in a podunk cow-town, there's a city-dweller who's just dying to get out of the rat race. I think urbanites can understand why the taxes they pay that regulate farmers and ranchers affects them directly, but I'm not so sure the cattle rancher thinks the same way about how his taxes are spent in the city. How do urban community centers and needle exchange programs help farmers grow better crops?