Phi for All

! Moderator Note Are you still interested in discussing this topic?

Why would you spell anyone's name phonetically on a discussion forum? Most of us know how it's pronounced, so we don't need you to dumb it down for us (you also didn't spell it phonetically, you went out of your way to put "camel" in there for some reason). And if you hadn't noticed, your crowd (MAGA) loves to mispronounce anything that doesn't sound white or Christian, even though there are no white people in the Bible. It's done in derision, like non-white names are too stupid to bother with pronouncing them correctly.

Racist insult, that's how I read it. Purposely so.

The difference, of course, is that one can check the veracity of scientific theories. It doesn't matter what you were taught if it doesn't actually work that way. You make it sound like someone could practice science that was culturally accepted but didn't actually work. Another mistake you keep making about science is associating it with "truth". Truth is subjective; science and scientific theory is looking for the best supported explanations, not answers, and especially not "truth". Religion looks for truth, and tries to insist on it. Science is always looking to improve, so we don't etch things on stone tablets.

! Moderator Note This can't stay in a mainstream section without some supportive evidence, something that can be analyzed objectively. We need more than you waving your fist, especially if you're making claims about efficacy. Do this quickly, please.

And even your understanding of this is flawed, because you obviously haven't studied the theory of evolution, and seem unwilling to admit it. You even claim you understand it "often better" than those who have. Have you read up on the Dunning-Kruger studies? You're a novice in this area, yet you insist on criticizing it based on your limited knowledge. Is this a Christian thing? Do you feel some kind of superiority based on your faith that makes you think ridiculing something makes you better?

And this is demonstrably false. In fact, you've been corrected repeatedly on your poor understanding of the science you're ridiculing.

Just like you and evolution. How hypocritical is it of you to criticize those who understand what you don't?

Why do you want to use the same word to describe both an automobile accident and Heinrich Himmler?

"The Lady doth protest too much, methinks." -- Gertrude

Watergate didn't "turn out to be true". Evidence of conspiracy was found, and that's the difference. This is another misuse of the word "theory", imo, conflating it with "it probably happened this way". Scientific theories have mountains of evidence.

More misrepresentation. You just claimed that the theory of evolution claims we're from nature and gives no further explanation. How is this a strong argument? Are you conflating Big Bang theory with evolutionary theory? Perhaps you misunderstand the words. You seem to be demanding that "chaos" be used only in a way that makes you comfortable. Since you don't bother to cite your sources, we have no way to determine what "some claim". You seem to be cherry-picking certain beliefs, ridiculing them, and then hoping we'll treat all beliefs regarding evolution the same way. Weak, weak, weak. This sounds like a you problem. Humans ARE animals, get over it. Nothing devalues us by telling the truth. Quite the opposite, it tells this atheist that it's our brains that give us our advantages, and I prefer to use them alongside scientific methodology as opposed to praying to Iron Age spirits for my redemption.

Is this more ChatGPT bullshit? You have no idea what "most atheists" believe in general, and you definitely don't know how "most atheists" feel about the theory of evolution. You don't need to be an "evolutionary biologist" to understand the theory, it's pretty logically consistent. Why is it important to you that something must be discoverable "from scratch"? Is this because you think people find religion "by scratch"? I assure you, it takes quite a bit of work to go from nature spirits to a god like yours. Evolution shows us that supernatural forces are NOT necessary. YOU erroneously believe that evolution has anything to do with creation, so of course the information you fed into ChatGPT is in error. Your arguments are extremely weak, based solely on your misunderstandings of science, and you show it with every post.

! Moderator Note Closing this in favor of the better thread.

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.

! Moderator Note I think you need to focus on your first Speculative thread, and support that instead of starting other speculative threads based on the first one (which you need to support a bit better). No sense building on a shaky foundation.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Do you support Zionism, MigL? 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.