Phi for All

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.

dimreepr has been suspended for a week for doubling down on some trolling.

! Moderator Note Honestly, it's difficult enough to moderate discussions on sensitive topics without dealing with trolls, especially when they've been members for quite some time. You need to sit the rest of this week out.

Does it sound like Canada and Mexico respect the decisions being made by the new administration? Around the world, this is being hailed as the stupidest, most moronic thing any country could do to it's closest allies and neighbors. If you have a trade deficit, perhaps it would be better to make something other countries want rather than punch them in the face for having better goods.

Something is wrong here. You don't think we approach your discussions in the spirit of science because they often get shut down. There's always a reason why speculative threads are closed. You also say being an amateur doesn't stop you from understanding physics. Why don't you understand the reasons given for shutting your threads down? When a thread is closed because it involves too much guesswork and not enough testable science, why don't you understand that? Why do you think it's not in the spirit of science? Do you think the spirit is supposed to encourage you to be less rigorous in your treatments? This is my frustration. If you understand, why can't you support your ideas using decent methodology? Does this make any sense at all to you?

! Moderator Note Putting more thought into your posts would look less like trolling. Do better, please.

The events might be designed to reduce the popular momentum a certain modern day Robin Hood is getting. We've been assured they aren't foreign or US military or any threat to the populace. Billionaire distraction?

! Moderator Note This is NOT a Quantum Theory. Moving to Other Sciences. What did you want to discuss about this subject? We aren't looking for a blog or a lecture, or for anything an AI has to say on the subject. We're looking for a conversation with YOU. Please give a direction so members can respond.

The idea of a businessperson being able to lead a country is laughable. Countries don't operate like businesses. Countries HAVE to arrange priorities differently, while every single business needs to make a profit. Profit is NOT on a country's list of priorities anywhere. A democracy like the US should be paving the way for the success of all its citizens, not just the richest. The billionaires have sucked dry most people's ability to prosper by valuing their own efforts several hundred times more than the efforts of the average person. None of the businessmen who've been POTUS have done anything spectacular for the country. Bush II took a balanced budget and a surplus (federal deficit erased) and left the country with US$3.293T (Trillion) in deficits, and gave away our ability to negotiate drug prices with Big Pharma. TFG was twice as bad in half the time. You may love them, but billionaires and businesspeople are NOT out to help others, and that should be the key asset of any politician. Public servants aren't splashy and entertaining, but they also give a shit about everyday people, unlike the billionaires who exploit them for profit. Public servants aren't taught to Deny, Defend, Depose.

It may be a focus for this article about a book, but the fact is people all over the world don't trust their media. Russia, China, Japan, the US, the EU, you name the country and the young people there (and many of the older people too) don't trust what their media is telling them. Perhaps we could broaden the focus of this topic, seeing as it's NOT a problem only "the West" is having. It's hard to trust people posting on social media as well, considering many are openly pushing their own agendas. Maybe even paid to do so.