Phi for All

Did ChatGPT tell you the BBT was an origin theory? It's not. It says nothing about what happened at T=0. And just because we use T=0, it doesn't mean time emerges from nothing.

I still find it hard to believe that we played that game back in the mid-70s, where we'd drive across town to get gas 2 cents cheaper. I don't think my Datsun pickup had more than a 15 gallon tank. Was 30 cents really that dear back then, am I just remembering incorrectly? I often get more than 30 cents per gallon discount from my supermarket, so saving $3-4 seems worth it.

"Likely requires" is a phrase that a little rigor could eliminate. This notion that intricacy requires some supernatural agency has been debunked over and over. Creationism has no scientific support.

You don't save as much as you think on gasoline. It's about the same getting better discounts but paying more for groceries at the supermarkets who offer better gas discounts. You don't save that much over PetSmart or even Amazon on dog food. I don't eat that many eggs, and I prefer paying more for a great cut of meat at a local butcher rather than buying beef in bulk. You have to watch out for the bulk stores like Sam's and Costco.

JohnDBarrow, Ugly American Poster Child. Way worse than that. He involved the folks at Bank of America, so it's a national nightmare.

I'm not sure it matters how you look, or even that there's a "class" difference. If you're paying for labor in modern times, you're trying to pay the least amount you can to get the job done right. If you're wealthy, you know exactly how much that labor is worth to you, how much you'd like to pay, and how much more you would have paid if the laborer had insisted. The Lords and Ladies may simply be embarrassed to eat with someone they've royally screwed over. Deep down they know how much more your labor is worth, perhaps? If I had shortchanged a laborer, the last think I'd want is to eat food off their table in front of their spouse and kids.

For me it's not about rules or adopting them. It's about moving past the need for them. Special needs should be met with special measures rather than forcing everyone to deal with extra noise all the time. I think we can do better for everybody, especially those who might be at most risk from quiet electric vehicles. This is NOT a seat belt issue, imo, where everyone involved benefits from installing the technology. I propose searching for different solutions. As an example, the light rail system installed near me had major problems with traffic collisions. They used all kinds of costly measures that impacted even those who weren't crossing the tracks with their vehicles. I had just visited Germany where a relative of my wife worked for a firm that made a monorail train that ran on powered, raised tracks that could be retrofit alongside roadways so auto traffic never intersected with the train cars. Perhaps similar thinking could help keep pedestrian and auto traffic from interacting as much as possible. Or perhaps those with visual impairments can wear a device that vibrates or communicates via bluetooth regarding traffic in the immediate vicinity. Touch and sound only you experience to replace bad vision. I think personalized solutions like this are less expensive in the long run, but haven't been adopted because it seems to give benefits to a select few. I have a very hard time thinking of removing that loud, obnoxious IC engine noise that the OP loves so much as introducing "a hazard to others". Are cyclists a hazard because they're quiet? Society seems to have figured out a way for cyclists to let only those they interact with know they're coming up, rather than making the cyclists be loud for everybody all the time. There is a responsibility when any danger is involved, but I think many of our solutions are done cheaply without consideration for other consequences. Pollution in general is the prime example of being too cheap to clean up our messes and deal with dangers responsibly.

I hate just about everything about this opening post. It's not your work, it's not even the author's work, it assumes far too much about cells being able to "decide" their futures, and the bulk of it is just drawing parallels with human behavior without any real meaning. And typically, you've managed to stretch the definition of several words so they fit the analogies you're using. You're practically giving consciousness to chemical reactions. This is just my opinion, but I don't think this deserves a discussion with real people. It seems cheap and cowardly. Based on past history, you'll ignore any detractors by claiming it's not your work, just someone you read.

So, extremely limited as communication devices. Slow, clunky, and keeps you tethered to an area as big as your cord reaches. The best part about this old arrangement was that you didn't own the phones, the Bell systems did, and they leased them to you. They were responsible for them, and they made those old rotary phones practically indestructible so they didn't have to come fix them when people got mad and threw them against the wall. For the rest of it, the apps are only difficult because you've decided you hate them. Use them a few times, get used to what you have to do to make them work, and then it becomes the norm. Does your phone often die or become lost or broken? Does it happen often enough to warrant carrying yet another card in your wallet?

I'm not sure any more that this is necessarily a "money" problem. If you substitute anything else that's an abrupt change of lifestyle that leaves you on unfamiliar ground for "winning the lottery", you can end up with the same unhappy person. Inheriting a manor house after a lifetime of renting small apartments. Being promoted to upper management when you've always been the hard worker with poor people skills. Enjoying a single lifestyle until your sibling dies and you agree to move in and help take care of their large family. Lots of things that many people believe are always good can cause unhappiness just because we're not prepared or experienced enough. It's hard to be happy if you constantly feel out of your depth.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3078079 Most of the studies I've seen admit a reduction in the severity of the accidents, then offer other reasons why it's not such a great idea. I don't buy it, though. This study talks about how the composition of the accidents definitely change, but not the overall number of accidents. They also make the claim that people are in just as much danger of drivers stopping short because they fear a fine, but that's something that would change naturally over time. We've had some added merge lanes in my area, and it took two years before people learned to calm down and let people merge. It's the same with the argument that the companies contracted to run them are corrupt, so we shouldn't have red light cameras. There are ways to keep a system like this honest.

I think there are equally helpful alternatives that don't add to the noise pollution. No matter how quiet the whirring is, if all the vehicles are doing it, it's going to be a source of noise that we could have avoided. And I still say things would be different for everyone if we reduced most of the industrial and commercial noises we create. Other solutions may present themselves if we remove the worst offenders. I understand, but it just seems redundant to me. You already "check behind" for an accurate assessment of vehicular propinquity. An aural confirmation seems excessive. I'm a fan of putting cameras on traffic lights. If you really want to stop terrible accidents, we should focus on people running red lights, where the physics results in more deaths. Do that for a while and real life examples show that folks will stop ignoring red lights. And the higher population areas are the ones that need industrial and commercial noise reduced more than anywhere else. Higher density should mean higher restrictions, since it also means higher benefits.

Remove more loud IC vehicles from the road and the EVs can more easily be heard. Require more sound baffling when industrial machinery is in use. Keep removing the noise pollution as much as possible so vision impairment measures are more effective. And along the way we reduce overall stress levels brought on by our overly loud society. Personally, I think we need to revisit what it means to be part of a society. Anyone who wants the benefits of civilization but isn't willing to be vaccinated or follow laws has been severely undereducated. If we follow the rules, we deserve an environment that doesn't poison our bodies and senses. If this is the way of the automotive future, perhaps there's a solution that targets just people with hearing impairments. Rather than make noise EVERYBODY hears, perhaps there might be a way to signal just those with hearing impairments that a vehicle is near?

This seems stupid. Why add noise pollution when we can reduce it significantly? Teach everyone to watch out, and enjoy the silence. Duh

I don't think science has anything to say about "reality", just about what we can observe. Do you have a philosophical way of determining what is "real" or not? I can do a great deal with observations about a specific thing, and I can experiment with it and draw conclusions that I can base predictions on, but I don't have a meaningful way of determining if the thing is "real" or not. It seems real enough, and for my purposes that's all I need. I've seen the most outlandish claims when people start talking about "reality".

Pondering, ignorance, and guesswork have NOT, historically, been as successful wrt science as experimentation, modeling, and following reasoned methodology. I think what you're doing is filling the gaps in your knowledge with stuff that makes sense to you. It's very easy to do, but it's only going to make sense to you, with your limited knowledge of mainstream physics.

! Moderator Note You've been warned and had threads shut down before for insisting on this "expanded" definition of cognition. The reasoning stays the same; you are diluting the meaning of the word by asking it to cover too much, and thus you make the word meaningless. You've had six pages to defend this idea, and are now reverting to old habits. Thread closed.

What if god is just a scam that promotes a brand of chaos that allows men to justify/denounce any behavior they want? What if god is the nasty root of patriarchal exploitation, aggression, and greed? What if god is the sole obstacle to humans deciding to live in a peaceful, cooperative society that practices a more horizontal morality, focusing on those beside us rather than those above or below us?

The dome homes are very interesting. A reusable air bladder makes the shape, then reinforcing rebar and cables are placed over the bladder and concrete is sprayed over it all. When dry, the bladder is removed: They go up incredibly quickly and don't cost much. I wonder if the lack of corners is a good thing or not, since wood shifting relieves stress in framed buildings, but also creates a lot of cracks in drywall and some flooring.

Why would any theory be considered "eternal"? By definition, theories change as we gain better information. Working towards a ToE seems like a worthy endeavor. Guessing what might be behind that door before it's opened doesn't seem scientific.

! Moderator Note "Listen to what I'm saying to you and piece it together yourselves" is NOT science. Stop posting like this. Part of the rules is you have to make SOME sense. Do this again and your account will be suspended or banned.

! Moderator Note Please read the rules for our Speculations section. You need to include some kind of supportive evidence in your explanation that persuades us that you have a point to make. The above doesn't come close. ! Moderator Note Also, let me deal with the Report you made re swansont's request for actual science. It wasn't obnoxious or idiotic, it was a couple of questions from a retired physicist about your OP. It wasn't false or misleading information, it was a couple of questions about your lack of rigor. It's also NOT nonsense or harassment, it's part of the rules you agreed to when you joined. Please do better.

This, this right here is a big part of the problem. Science has NOTHING to do with "deeply held beliefs". Read that a few times, please. In science, you have to trust what you choose to believe, and evidence is what you can base your trust in. You don't "deeply hold" a belief in chemistry; you perform experiments that show you over and over how various chemicals interact. You don't need faith or wishful thinking, you need to trust what the science has shown you, until it shows you that you need a better explanation. You seem to really WANT scientists to be as guilty in their "belief system" as religious folks are. You really WANT science to be just another religion with believers who might be wrong. Science is different because it's not asking you to believe in something that can't be observed or quantified, and it gives you a rigorous methodology for examining evidence that either supports or falsifies an explanation. If you challenge a scientific explanation with actual evidence, if you can devise an experiment that shows the explanation isn't sufficient, and can support that among your peers with testable science, your challenge can't be ignored, especially if it's supported by maths.

We've found, over the years, that trying to "think outside the box" requires you to have a firm grasp of what's "inside the box". No offense, but your mistake is in thinking you know enough about the subject to present new concepts. You've skipped the formal study of the subject so you have a bad foundation for understanding, and now you want to propose new concepts to replace the ones that don't make sense to you, because you skipped the formal study. Haven't ALL of your "new concept" threads been shown to have major flaws? You get critiques by experts, but you keep posting your new concepts. At no point do you ever say, "It seems I should take a formal course in this", so I'm not sure where the benefits for all involved are.

I've observed that fanning cool air to the face makes me feel just as comfortable in the heat as cooling the whole room with AC. It's like if the face feels cool the rest of the body agrees.