Phi for All

This is unreasoned, unclear, and unhelpful. Conversation with you online is difficult and unrewarding. Off-topic, this might be a small part of the reason why you've had problems at other discussion forums.

I second this. You argue fallaciously then cover it up with rants you think make some kind of point. I see no decent arguments from you so far about this topic, only denigration of your detractors from a very high horse. You argued that science denies religion while agreeing with me that science isn't the right tool to use with religion. Do you see the conflict? Science explains the natural world. You're basing your arguments on misconceptions, and you're not the first.

Definitely not the way it came off to me. Your mileage may vary. You seem too reasonable to use an obvious strawman argument like this. Science hasn't determined the soul doesn't exist, it just classifies it as supernatural because they can't find one no matter how much people believe. Similarly, I don't have to claim pixies don't exist when I can simply ask you to show me one before I agree with you.

What I read here is frustration that you have no evidence to back up your arguments, so you seek to devalue the mountains of evidence that support every mainstream scientific theory. I don't see a conflict with science and religion. Science can safely keep asking for supportive evidence before acknowledging religious beliefs. If it's supernatural, science isn't really the right tool to use. You'd have to define what you mean by soul, but it sounds supernatural, something we guess at but can't actually observe, measure, or quantify. For scientific purposes, I'd start with psychology. Physics and biology agree that what you call a "soul" doesn't seem to exist. Personality? Character? Psychology might have some answers.

What you posted looks like a lecture rather than an attempt at conversation. It's all opinion. Discussing your opinion isn't as interesting as you might think. We're a science discussion forum with a Religion section, and we still like some evidential support for any claims or arguments.

It's NOT a theory, as swansont pointed out. Theory has a very specific meaning in science. It's the hallmark of explanations. It doesn't get any better than theory. And theories start with hypotheses, which are then rigorously tested and observed, experiments are developed, and conclusions are used to predict further concepts. Only after there are mountains of evidence in support and not a single bit of evidence to contradict it does an idea like this start getting called a theory. You say you're questioning whether we know the real story behind wind. I understand you may not know much about it, but what do you think mainstream science has wrong about it? Where is the mystery that science can't explain? What is lacking in our accumulated knowledge of wind? Is it simply that it sometimes behaves in an erratic fashion that resists prediction? What gaping hole does your overlooked dynamic fill?

Seriously, you toss out pressure and temperature variations that are easily testable and observable for some kind of extra-dimensional hocus pocus? Also, you put this in a mainstream section so please don't bring up religion. Do you have any mainstream scientific support for this? If you don't, we'll need to move this to Speculations.

The Report function is working.

That's not what you claimed though. Earth as the universal center is an example of something people had wrong, not something that was perceived and later confirmed by observation. Also, the guesswork of gravity also doesn't count as an example of perception later being observation. Meteorites were myths? Do you have a citation for this? It seems like there is ample evidence once it's here on Earth.

Can you name one?

I didn't ask about equations. You used the word "designed" wrt to humans, and I wanted to know if you meant "developed" or "evolved" as opposed to "created by a designer". Also, I asked about your use of "equilibrium". Isn't it true that everything seeks to find its own balance within its environment? Why is it so special that humans do it too? Where did these materials and minerals come from, if not from the universe, which is the technical boundary for everything that exists? Theory has no place for "certainty", that's not how science works. Your hypothesis should stick to what you can explain through observations backed up by supportive evidence. I recommend you focus more on exploring how you can support these ideas, and leave some of the more speculative areas (alternate realities, etc) out of it.

It would be best if you can copy/paste it here (I tried and it was taking forever for just 3 pages). Designed, by a designer? And can you give me an example of something, anything in the universe that doesn't seek equilibrium? Or are you defining that word differently? The only references I can find for vibrational energy are trying to sell me crystals and woo. Is there any science behind this?

You Fucking Guy, The smart people who don't like you aren't going to be fooled by trying to declare martial law this weekend. The governors won't be fooled. The courts won't be fooled. Can you trust Congress to back you up on this, the ones who aren't on the list with you? The red state reps find it hard to spin big government interventions, especially when your tariffs messed up so many farmers and blue-collar families. You've been acting like their greatest nightmare: a government run amok with power, interfering in everyone's business, and preying on ordinary citizens who just want to live in freedom.

I've seen: You had me at calculus... Data or it didn't happen. Or maybe custom: Nothing is cooler than absolute zero. Except MigL.

Moved to The Lounge. We exclusively sold Cheese Nips in the store up until the end of 2022 when Kraft recalled them all due to harmful plastics in the product and then discontinued them. I think @swansont is working on an alternative recipe, but tariffs are steep on the equipment he needs.

Moderator NoteNo more medical advice, please. We discuss science here.

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?!