Phi for All

Moderator NoteWe don't offer medical advice here. We're a science discussion forum. Conversation rather than lecture or diagnosis.

Moderator NoteOur forum software suggests these two accounts are the same person. Please address this issue before posting in this thread again. Multiple accounts are against the rules.

I prefer a definition of alive that retains meaningfulness. The distinction between organic and inorganic matter blurs under your POV. Claiming energy is a thing that could have life also doesn't fit within a scientific framework. Energy is a property of things, not a thing itself.

I missed any reference to your actual country. Unless you mentioned it, or your coursework indicates the country of origin, I don't think anyone outside of staff could know from where you're posting. In any event, science discussion should be attacking ideas and concepts, not people. We're not face-to-face, but it's good to imagine we're sitting around a table talking about science.

"Boycotted" is the wrong word. We have rules, and reminding you of them is NOT abstaining from discussion with you. "Racist" is the wrong word. I'm not sure if you've ever shared information regarding your "race", but the frustration you're seeing is not about that at all. You seem to have a good grasp of the science you're asking questions about, and your posts usually give a bit of your thinking with regard to the problem you're trying to solve. You normally don't ask the question straight from the book, and that's always appreciated. When you don't understand something, you ask follow up questions, and that's great as well. It would also be nice to get a few words from you when you DO understand something the other members have shown you. It doesn't matter how much time it takes you to reply. The issue is more a matter of discussion vs classroom. We like to discuss, like a conversation, instead of lecturing, like a classroom. Does that make sense to you?

@MigL can probably translate.

The one that attacked the Maths section and left a tentacle behind. He went by the name "Kraken", but I call him Ari.

Perhaps that would be a good way to steer the conversation, sort of give the OP something to think about. I did have a chuckle at the bit where the AI claims that chemistry isn't limited to test tubes and beakers anymore, then proceeds to list four industries who definitely use beakers and test tubes when doing chemistry.

If I were you, I'd dump it in the hole you've been digging and hope we all forget about it. Don't mark the grave. I know you can't see it, but the members in this thread have been using established science as the barometer to test your assertions. There is an enormous difference between mainstream knowledge and what your AI whispers in your ear. Subjective experience is anecdotal. It changes from person to person, and I'm very sorry you can't see why it really has no place in drawing scientific conclusions. Science is SUPPOSED to be more rigorous than your casual musings. Why are you even arguing against that?!

I can assure you, nobody serious here is looking for "the truth". That's the biggest pile of subjective garbage I can imagine, 8 billion versions of "the truth". Yours is no better than billions of others. But that's why science uses the methods it does, to remove all the subjective bits you wish were correct, hopefully leaving objective facts to base an explanation on. Rigor is plodding, I know, and boring, I know. Hard to hold most people's attention with all the baby steps and verification and experimentation and confirmation and peer review and ALL THE GODDAMN RIGOR that your approach lacks. If you make assertions here, you need to back them up with evidence. In the Speculations section, you don't get to make claims without verifying them, or at least providing supportive evidence. This is why you get pushback. What you're doing isn't discussion, it's soapboxing.

Moderator NoteActually, we're a science discussion forum, so we'd prefer to have a conversation about the topic you've chosen. However, the format also seems generated, and we prefer to talk to you rather than a bot or AI. Can you give us an idea of what you'd like to discuss, or was this supposed to be more of a blog entry? We're not your blog, but we'd like to be part of whatever science you wish to discuss. Talk about. Converse over. We don't need a lecture. We just want to talk, thanks.

You should put the shovel down and stop digging yourself in deeper. Making up rules to fit your needs is counterproductive. Science discussion forum, follow scientific methodology. Boxing forum, follow the Marquess of Queensbury rules. And btw, formal logic is for maths and philosophy, Mr Spock. For science, we look for reasoning, a preponderance of evidence, and modeling that allows us to make predictions based on our explanations.

Moderator NotePlease start these posts in the Homework Help section so I don't have to waste my time moving them there. Thank you.

There's science here?! Rigor requires a methodology you don't bother to follow. With such, it's easy to see where the problems lie, and the members have been trying to tell you for four pages now. It's pretty typical for folks who don't know much science to fill the gaps with junk they make up. Then, since it's based only on lots of ignorance, it seems like like a perfect explanation. I'm sure you've experienced this with subjects you do know a lot about. An amateur comes in with an idea, you know it's not viable but they don't, and it's hard to convince them otherwise. You aren't alone in this.

So what does that say about your "data"? This is a science discussion forum, you're proposing non-mainstream explanations, but you can't be bothered to explain it to the members here in a rigorous fashion. Instead we get lots of garbage that you think represents some kind of support. If you're entirely satisfied, you should start a blog rather than disingenuously claiming you want an actual conversation.

Please define "qualified", especially since you "put it in quotes". Would any qualifications satisfy you, or does someone have to be a professional physicist for 30+ years to "qualify"?

I did? My intention was to ask you some questions about it so we could discuss the parts I don't understand.

This is a science discussion forum. We discuss science here. Who here is "working on a similar theory"? Can you link to their thread so we know what kind of help you're asking for? If you don't know any physics, how do you know to trust your formula? If you don't know physics, how can you make statements like: Pick one of your predictions, please, and tell me how it works within the parameters of the laws of physics, You know it works? But you need help with it? Are both these things true?

Moderator NotePlease don't use a speculative idea to respond to a mainstream science thread. You have a way to go before your concept becomes a theory.

Moderator NoteMoved to Speculations. You need to provide more supportive evidence for your idea. Please provide as much clarity in how you're using these terms as you can. I'm removing personal information from your OP. Just not a good idea. We're a science discussion forum, and anything we can discuss can be done here.

Moderator NoteThread closed.

We don't normally delete anything, but this made me twitch a bit, so I released it.

They really should be hidden if flagged. I'd assumed they were as well. Why require staff approval if the post can already be seen?

The genus Homo is only about two million years old, not hundreds of millions of years.

With these floods, all we need is a heads up that we're being attacked. Once we deal with shutting down the open threads through spambanning, we can gatekeep new member registrations. What a pain! These attacks have no links, so a lot are getting through. Not sure how effective the phone number scams are, seems like such a long shot on a site like this.