Phi for All

Nobody failed, except you. It's been presented that your coincidences are nothing more than confirmation bias, where you cherry pick certain instances and ignore others. This is "identifying them" as insufficient to draw the conclusions you do. There are plenty of explanations that don't require invoking some all-powerful sky prince to make sense of them.

When you're getting a golden shower, the golden angle is very important. Get it right and urine heaven!

SR wasn't meant to ALWAYS work, it's a special case, as Bufofrog pointed out. Is this a situation where you misunderstood something and dismissed it out of hand? Your reasoning seems pretty shaky in this thread.

This actually supports the concept of time as a dimension. When you decrease your motion through space, you increase your motion through time, and it works the other way too. And even with length contraction and time dilation, two observers can agree on what's happening within their different frames of reference. And it only works this way if time is a dimension you can't separate from space.

You can't move through space without moving through time as well. Changing motion through space or time affects the other in predictable ways. Special Relativity works, and it wouldn't if time weren't a dimension.

! Moderator Note Please tone down the preaching. You can support the arguments you're making without soapboxing about it.

The recurrent laryngeal nerve is something every vertebrate has from a distant fishy common ancestor, connecting the larynx (which performed a gill function) to the brain. Over time, the connecting nerve looped below the heart and just stretched to fit each evolving species. In humans, the laryngeal nerve goes from our brains, down our throats and in front of the aorta before looping underneath the heart and going back up the throat to our voice boxes. In giraffes, the RLN is crazy long. Imagine what it was like on some of the long-necked sauropods!

Sometimes realizing you're not alone in your feelings can remove some stress, and for that a forum can help. Other times it might be better to speak one on one with a professional, preferably someone recommended by your doctor. I can't help you. I don't think of negative thoughts as a "condition"; I think of them as a perspective, which is one of the few things in my life I can control. Negativity is an easier path, and often seems more realistic than being positive. It takes more work to stay positive, to think positively, and to spin events so they uplift me rather than depress me. It's hard, but the negativity is a bad habit I'm trying to kick, like nail-biting or smoking. So, negative results, time to try something else. Maybe see a professional face-to-face.

The argument that breaks ID for me is irreducible complexity. Proponents claim the human eye is so ridiculously complex that it MUST have been designed by an intelligent creator, yet ignore how badly this designer botched the job. Today, one could easily design a much more effective eye from scratch, and it's obvious from the current design that the human eye has changed over time to produce the clunky version we have now.

But I heard their Clinical Management courses involve handling snakes and walking across hot coals. And some of the student testimonials on the website were written in crayon. Is this a personal choice or a requirement? Can you give me the names of the schools where the teachers don't talk to you? That sounds ideal, actually. I'm pretty sure EVERYBODY studies at their own pace. It's impossible not to, really, so this seems like you're using buzzwords to emphasize something that happens anyway at every school.

... except it would be much more scientific to ignore the rambling and focus on the individual arguments for evidence. Taken in that light, nothing makes any of these incidents special or designed. You don't have to dismiss any of the arguments as "rambling" when they include things like predicting that politicians would be corrupt in the future.

These totally sound like silly little coincidences, except for your own manipulation (you asked the officer to look at the drive, so how was it "intended" to occur?). Birthday probabilities tell us you only need a sample of 23 people before the odds of two of them having the same birthday exceed 50%. And OMG, a son named Joseph? Something like 3% of American men are named Joseph.

Fingers. But not stuck up inside a sockpuppet. That's not allowed here.

! Moderator Note This is in the Organic Chemistry section. Guesswork here isn't helpful.

Can there be yellow without bananas and lemons? Can you have round without balls and circles? Can I borrow a cup of momentum? All of these things, including energy, are properties of a thing rather than things by themselves.

Jamie Maussan, a UFO researcher, is showing this evidence TO the government of Mexico. He's the one making the claims, not the government of Mexico. That's the way I read this story.

! Moderator Note This argument is clearly made in bad faith as an attempt to dismiss what others have said. I suggest you reread the whole thread before claiming nobody has given you any support for their arguments.

You have no real control over the past or the future, and the only things you truly control in the present are your attitude and your efforts. You can make sure both are focused on what you want to achieve.

How do you define those terms? Does "leave the past behind" mean never thinking about it anymore? Does it mean forgetting all you've learned from your experiences in the past? Does it mean only thinking about the good parts of the past? I think "move towards the future" assumes there is an ideal future for you if you can figure it out. Am I wrong about that? I think our past shapes and prepares us for what we're doing in the present, and helps us think ahead to prepare for what may happen in the future. Success in the future almost always comes from correctly predicting in the present what you'll need to get or do to achieve it, and that's mostly based on past experience.

Sometimes merchants need to finalize transactions and delay charges, but I've never heard of a bank doing it. I can almost guarantee those charges will show back up again.

If one person with a skin temp of 95F lies on the material to warm it up, and ten minutes later another person with a skin temp of 95F touches it with their hand, the second person is going to feel less than or equal to 95F, so it will feel either cooler or the same, but not warmer. Does that make sense? Like when you test someone for a fever by touching their forehead, you feel the difference between 95F and 100F as warmth.

Your wife gets annoyed when you hover? Are you using some kind of blower arrangement indoors? You should switch to magnetic levitation. Welcome to the forum!

! Moderator Note Moved to The Lounge.

! Moderator Note This is NOT the place to advertise anything. It's against the rules.

Not entirely. Retailers make a LOT of choices about what to sell based on space available, profit margins, and many other factors, none of which were driven by the customer. I want a specific part to fix my X, but to save space and make more profit, the retailer carries a kit that fits 90% of all Xs so he only has to stock the kit, which costs 50% more and makes the retailer more profit than the specific part I wanted. Not sure if it's happening where you are, but in the US the grocery stores are revamping their floorplans and procedures, paying their employees more and giving them better working conditions (which is long overdue), but they've done so at the expense of the customer. We used to load up our carts and bring them to the checkout, where the checker took each item out of the basket to scan it. Now the checkouts start with a conveyor belt, the customer loads AND unloads the cart, and the checker just scans. They have fewer checkers, so the lines are longer. The stores are making record amounts of profit, but they aren't hiring more workers, they're just getting the customers to do more for free. The US is far from a free market, and blaming the customer is blaming the victim, imo. I've still got my eye on the ultra-rich as the culprits.