Phi for All

! 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?

This seems similar to the problems we see when we tie school funding to property taxes. At a certain point, there's not enough money to sustain a top tier school system and the community declines. And I wonder if Red state mentality isn't the culprit. Blue theory seems to say those with more economic opportunities (in the cities) should help those less fortunate (in the country). Are the rural folks slapping away helping hands because they want to concentrate on their bootstraps and their personal up-pulling?

! Moderator Note Moved from Relativity to Speculations due to the non-mainstream nature of the thread. Please read the special rules for this section, and support your idea with evidence and reasoned arguments. "Look for the ones that make sense" is NOT a reasonable step. Science attempts to remove as much subjectivity as possible.

Business owners in general favor as little regulation as possible, and the rural ones are usually associated with a lot of land (farming, ranching) and have their own special reaction to anyone telling them what they can do on it. Programs paid for by taxes tend to favor the population centers, where states get more bang for their buck, and where more voters will be affected. Policies and politics that favor the People over Big Business are more popular in more populous areas. 70% of Americans feel the the whole economic system is rigged to favor the already wealthy, and many folks in the rural US feel it's also rigged to favor big cities too.

motlan has been banned for not supporting the hypothesis they keep opening threads about, after repeated requests for such. When it's not a language problem, this behavior seems like willful disregard.

You have national healthcare, correct? The argument doesn't hold up as well in countries where the state hasn't expressed that much concern for overall health. The resource investment is mostly in things like roads and ports, which aren't really investments in the citizenry.

MSC has been suspended for a year. Everybody's hurting in some way, and we shouldn't add to anyone's burden.

I don't know about that. Does he claim a disk design is integral to creating this "free energy"? I've thrown my share of frisbees, and a saucer has some great stability along with its aerodynamics, but options for steering and propulsion are limited. Many people have made these "free energy" claims, but none has shown any promise. Not even a single demonstration that would lead anyone to believe they might truly be close to some kind of secret. I remember a guy in the US who made a car whose motor could generate more power than it needed to run it (or so he claimed). He drove it around in front of stadiums full of people, but he would never let them examine the car. He claimed he was worried someone would steal his idea, and had many excuses why he couldn't re-create another motor. If any of these claims were true, it would be the easiest thing in the world to show to experts. We have members here in this forum who know enough science to be able to evaluate a claim like that, if any of these inventors would allow their work to be evaluated. I still think mainstream science is your best way forward.

No such thing exists. There are several proposed ways to harvest fuel on a long space flight. A ramscoop might harvest hydrogen for use in a fusion reaction. Light sails could be used to eventually bring a space ship to impressive speeds.

There's nothing that says wormholes can't exist, but we haven't found one yet. If we could, we'd need some breakthroughs in technology before we could use one to travel. The flying saucer design (like they used in Lost in Space) is pretty fictional. We've experimented with them before, because without an orbital platform in space, we need a spaceship to move through our atmosphere until it reaches outer space. The saucer shape is hard to maneuver, and wasn't any easier to fly than a jet, but it was probably thought to be tougher, and take more stress. In space, your design doesn't have to be aerodynamic because there's no air. A Borg cube works as well as a Klingon Bird of Prey. So if I were you, I'd study some rocket science. The NASA website has a ton of interesting information. Shooting a rocket off and landing it on another planet is like calculating when and how hard to throw a dart so it hits a dartboard that's on the side of a car driving on the highway in the next city over. For the maths to do that, please visit the Khan Academy website.