Phi for All

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

Thank you and thank you.

I'd like to explain my above answer to you also Bufofrog,

The way you answered me with the monkeybutt thing and wag made me think I had upset you somehow.

I wrote in the new members section that I wasn't a scientist and a couple of people directed me to putting my idea in the specualtion area which is why I did.

My autism/aspergers couldn't understand why you seemed to be unhappy with me so I wrote what I did.

I really wasn't looking for an arguement but in plain text, the context of things doesn't come out as it should or is meant sometimes.

It also makes me hyper sensitive in a lot of things and I hate it, autism to me feels like a curse. So I am sorry.

Perhaps I should have asked if I had done something to annoy or upset you instead.

The way you responded showed great maturity and wisdom.

Your idea is going to be attacked because science demands rigorous assessment, but remember, on this site we don't attack people. Nobody is unhappy with you personally, nobody is upset. If someone says your explanation sounds like a wild-ass guess, it's probably because you haven't mentioned evidence that supports it. We try to remove subjective arguments, and arguments that "feel" right, in favor of those with evidence that allows us to test them and possibly base predictions on them. 

Just remember that you aren't this idea. Nobody replying here is talking about you personally. The responses are about this concept. I think most people here want you to see that, moving forward, you should learn how mainstream science is reflected in your explanation rather than continue to re-write/redefine accumulated human knowledge.

4 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

I thought from what I've seen so far that BH's or rather the Event Horizon eventually produced so much heat from it's gravitational 'meals' that is was released as a quasar, light years long, into the universe?

The radiation doesn't come from the BH, but rather from interactions just outside the event horizon. The math tells us nothing has the energy required to be "released" once past the EH. 

54 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

Perhaps black holes draw this information in, create new weird and wonderful fluxes with trillions? quadrillions? gazillions? of new SQEP's and their fluxes before sending it back out into the universe in a quasar to feed the universe and keep it expanding.

The spacetime region around matter that has overcome both electron and neutron degeneration is outrageously curved, so gravity seems extremely strong there. So strong that nothing, no matter, not even light can escape once it crosses into the event horizon of the region. Black holes don't send anything back out into the universe. 

11 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

Its going to sound very very unlikely but something came to me early august and as I kept writing it (it actually seemed to write itself) , it seemed to possibly provide an explanation to a lot of things, such as the big bang, quasars, black holes, dark matter, spiritualistc auras, the way ufo's can move so quick and effortlessly, human resonation, previous pre historic civilisation technology such as moving great stones around, instant quantum travel, entanglement,  quantum hair information, kinetic energy, possible cures to most illnesses,  and other things.

Are you dissatisfied with our current explanations for these phenomena? 

The danger here is that you haven't understood the science involved in mainstream theories ("Especially as I am not a scientist and to be honest I wasn't science educated at school"), and have opted instead for something that makes more sense to you. It seemed magical to you as you were writing it, because it IS magic, it's flying over the difficult parts to get to the parts that seem more reasonable. Unfortunately, scientific methods require us to plod forward, taking the next step in an idea only when we're absolutely sure it's the right one, based on a foundation of trustworthy knowledge. Theory is the strongest explanation we have in science, partly because they're tested so often and rigorously, and partly because they allow us to make accurate predictions. 

I'd suggest starting in our Speculations section. Focus on a couple of your concepts (maybe not the "human resonation" or the "spiritualistic auras"), give us some supportive evidence, and I guarantee some learning will happen.

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

but the no protection worries me.

Why, specifically? Can you monetize the idea, or is this about getting credit for it, or something else? 

If it covers "several sciences", which discipline do you want to use to discuss it (if you decide you want to share it)? 

Does this idea explain something we currently don't understand, or is it an idea that makes better sense to you than current theory? 

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

Rationalize it any way you want.
Israel doesn't have a documented policy of 'exterminating' their neighbors, although they could, as the only nuclear capable 'superpower' in the area.
What about Hamas ?
What about Hezbollah ?
What about the former PLO ?
What about Egypt at one time ?
What about Iran ?
What about Syria ?

Just how many do you want me to list before you open your eyes and realize that you guys are the enablers that the actual terrorists ( which I attemped to list, but there are too many ) play, to gain sympathy for their cause and 'punish' Israel, and Jews, worldwide.

I hear plenty of condemnations from you guys.
Either they are overreacting, being too over-reaching in their retaliatory attacks and killing too many civilians, or they are cowardly terrorists who strike with surgical attacks to kill actual terrorists using outdated  20 year old technology.
I have yet to hear a single suggestion on how to acheive peace so that both sides don't have to worry about attacks.

Maybe you think Jews should just disappear off the face of the Earth and that would solve the problem.
Another guy with a weird mustache thought the same way about 85 years ago.

Do you support Zionism, MigL?

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

Maybe you think Jews should just disappear off the face of the Earth and that would solve the problem.

Why do you insist on these insulting strawmen? Please feel free to shove this "Maybe you think Jews" comment back up your ass where it came from.

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

So, you can't specifically target the "bad guys' as that is cowardly, and you can't have collateral damage as that is cruel.
Doesn't give many alternative choices other than 'shut up and take it'.
not a good time to be an Israeli.

This argument would hold more weight if we weren't witnesses to the lengths Israel has gone to in their cleansing efforts. Ever since its creation, Israeli policy has been to keep punching their neighbors in the face, then overreact when that neighbor punches back, hopefully gaining a little more territory in the process. It's Middle Eastern Jim Crow strategy, designed to oppress while subjugating. American conservatives taught them well, just keep your foot on their throats and tell everyone you have to keep kicking them or they'll hurt somebody.

2 hours ago, Night FM said:

While the book of Genesis in the Bible says that Adam and Eve were vegans prior to the Fall of Man, I'm not sure where this actually fits into cultural history.

This always seemed like an extremist stance. The quotes from the Bible say that green plants are given for food, but it never says "Don't eat the animals!" the way it says "Don't eat apples from that tree over there!" Just like abortion and divorce, isn't it possible their god disapproves of something but allows it in some circumstances?

And the idea that all those obligate carnivores were munching nuts and dandelions is just crazy, as is the idea that their god changed up the physiology of everything after A&E got too curious. 

I don't think there's anything unethical about eating meat, not back then, not today. Animal husbandry and agriculture upgraded us from hunters and gatherers. What we should focus on is being able to raise our food animals without destroying the habitats of all the non-food animals we live alongside of. Diversity in all things. No more monocropping, no more factory farming. There are better ways.

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It seems that this might be a common theme to several of the discussions. I.e. starting off with non-standard definitions and then extrapolating from there. The issue is that it basically dismantles established frameworks around which discussions can be formed. 

It's a form of Begging the Question that starts with a redefinition. The key is to not accept the premise.

I think this is an attempt to say "God's violence is natural and to be expected" as well as "Everyone is evil". I've heard the bit where we're all sinners, but stretching "evil" to fit us all is a new one for me.

2 hours ago, Night FM said:

"Evil" refers to adversity in general, such as natural disasters. Not just destructive acts committed by humans.

Definitions should NOT be stretched to fit your purpose. In doing so, you've diluted the concept into meaninglessness. Anything that causes hardship is evil? What good is having the word evil if there's no distinction between it and affliction or obstacle? Evil requires intent. Evil requires a conscious mind behind the hardship or affliction. A flood after hard rains that destroys a town isn't evil, but if that flood was purposely created by someone (blow up the dam, divert the river, smite the wicked, etc), then that someone is evil. Please don't redefine the way everybody else uses a word just because it seems to support your argument.

3 minutes ago, Night FM said:

To me, it shows that people believe in preserving nature as an end in and of itself. So this implies some reverence of nature, in spite of the evil which natural phenomena can cause people to experience.

Doesn't intent play a part in your definition of "evil"? Where is the intent in nature and natural phenomena? Nature doesn't cause people to experience evil. If you think it does, give examples.

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

Not at all. There's no reason why natural science is any more of a "science" than anything else, unless that claim is simply reaffirmed through circular reasoning.

There are many reasons, but you don't behave as though you appreciate the methodology. You claim to have found religious answers that make more sense to you, and now it looks as though you're trying to justify not studying more "science". 

13 hours ago, Night FM said:

One could just as easily ask "is natural science (aka "hard science") a real science?".

A common misconception for people who don't know science.

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

Jow do you know which is which ?

If it's nature, it will happen no matter what you do. If it's God, there will be a way to avoid it somehow by being a "better" person.

7 hours ago, Night FM said:

Often violence committed by God is a point of criticism of religion (generally in relation to the Abrahamic religions), however violence committed by nature (e.x. earthquakes) doesn't tend to draw the same criticism of nature. (e.x. people often hold that "caring for the planet" is a good axiom, sometimes to a quasi-religious degree, even when nature seems apathetic to the suffering of humans).

I'm curious why this is. I suppose one could take a purely pragmatic approach and believe that human intervention in nature could cause loss of human life, and therefore should be avoided purely for the sake of consequences to humanity, however this wouldn't explain a reverence of nature (e.x. such as a desire to preserve endangered species even if they offer little to no practical benefit to humanity.

Nature isn't an entity like a deity, so it's not really capable of "committing" anything. Most of the "violence" you're highlighting are events like fire, floods, and lightning, which can't happen unless certain conditions are present, unlike the designed destruction written of in the Bible.

Caring for one's environment is a result of intelligence and understanding. Other animals make sure their immediate environment is kept functional. The desire to preserve the species we can is a nod to diversity, which seems to protect this whole planet from the harshness of our environments.

9 hours ago, Night FM said:

To me, it has poor implications even with the "for the most part qualifier", and doesn't accurately address the motives behind violent or criminal behavior.

I was looking for something along the lines of "You're right, I shouldn't have edited iNow's statement to make it look like he was being unreasonable and ridiculous, I'll avoid fallacious logic in the future." I know you disagree with him, but you can do it honestly. 

It also looks like you're moving the goalposts here by talking about motive. This seems so important to you that you're willing to cheat to make your points. Next you'll be breaking out ChatGPT to argue in bullet points for you.

7 hours ago, Night FM said:

I'm assuming that you're basing this assessment on either:

1. Physical differences between men and women which make it more likely that a woman could be overpowered by a male attacker

2. Statistics that show that men are more likely to be instigators of violence.

Correct me if I'm wrong. And if this safety concern is presumably based on biological differences between men and women (e.x. that a man is more likely to be able to physically overpower a woman), I'm curious what solution you propose to it.

Solutions to safety concerns seems like a red herring considering the topic is about whether or not gender is even relevant in terms of framing such concerns in the first place.

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

The link is to a thread on this site.

I see that now. I was on my phone earlier and it didn't ID the link.

Sorry, you seem more interested in luring me offsite than in discussing this here, where you joined to supposedly discuss this.

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

Even if you want to argue that there is a statistical prevalence of men being the perpetrators of physical violence against women, "only men hurt women" is a ridiculous statement.

I gave you a -1  on your reputation for this obvious strawman, made triply insulting because you quoted the reasonable statement, but edited it in your response, then called it ridiculous. Not an intellectually honest argument, in addition to being fallacious.

8 hours ago, St0rm said:

it gives me an electrifying feeling throughout my entire body.

Define "electrifying feeling", please. Have you ever touched wires and gotten a shock, is it like that? Is it painful or pleasant or neither? Is "entire body" an exaggeration, or do you feel it simultaneously in your toes and your face? "Throughout" implies that it feels like it's moving on a path, rather than a static buzzing all over, is that right? Does it feel like you're activating it by meditation or just focusing to hold it? 

14 minutes ago, Night FM said:

I think it's a moot point, because even if people say they don't believe in a God or afterlife, they still believe there is some inherent reason why they "should" behave kindly to others, as well as some inherant reason why they "shouldn't" behave wrongly to others, implying a consequence of sorts.

Or, we can believe that behaving kindly to others brings inherent benefits. There's no need for consequences, other than not gaining the benefits of fair treatment. Reduce the friction and the whole system has less stress and functions more like it's supposed to.

2 hours ago, Linkey said:

Ok, indeed I don't really believe in my hypothesis of "Great erasion", and I rather prefer the following hypothesis: we are unable to recognize extraterrestial civilizations (to distinguish then among the nature's phenomena). We haven't seriosly made a big progress in comparison to ants; if an ant sees us, he can't understand that we are not the ants. When somebody takes an ant from a leaf, this is the same for the ant, as paranormal phenomena for us.

Do you have any evidence to support this position? I don't think "ants v humans" is equivalent to "humans v extraterrestrials" for a variety of reasons, but mostly because our understanding of the universe is enhanced by a unique combination of skillsets and evolutionary features. An ant isn't designed for much beyond its capabilities, but our brains allow us to specialize and grow new skills and knowledge, and to adapt accordingly. There could be extraterrestrials that are far more advanced than we are, but the probability of them existing in such a way that we can't detect them at all is very low. 

16 minutes ago, Linkey said:

We must look for other explanations for the Fermi paradox, for example, this one: extraterrestrial civilizations have erased their radio broadcasts and other evidence of their existence, because the knowledge of the very fact that extraterrestrial civilizations exist can harm us at current stage of our development.