Phi for All

I did read Genady's post. He asked for references for a statement you made. Why do you find that odd? You claimed that the trampoline model for gravity is the kind of thing that will get young students interested, and Genady asked for maybe a link to a study or article where some rigor was put into the statement. Do you think it's bad to be skeptical of things we seem to take for granted? There's no evidence that he's being "deliberately obtuse", and plenty of evidence that he doesn't necessarily agree with you. He might be asking for a citation for your statement in order to get you to think harder about it or question it. Instead of guessing at people's motivations, perhaps just answering their questions might be a good strategy. You may think your statement is easy to understand, but you thought of it, so it makes perfect sense to you. Genady has a very good grasp of English (and a few other languages), so I'm sure they'll be happy to discuss this with you if you can avoid disparagement. FWIW, moderators here don't usually moderate threads they're involved in. All my statements have been made as a member.

Hey! What the hell? You don't get to talk to people that way here. Civility is our #1 rule. And FYI, lots of pop-sci mangling of explanations have been very detrimental. You argue that it makes science more accessible to kids, but many popular science articles are extremely misleading. I think it's MUCH better to teach correct science, even if it's harder, than to dumb it down to the point where it's causing more problems (like the rubber sheet analogy). Please don't use Strawman arguments here. Nobody, NOBODY claimed kids don't find experiments cool, and I think you know that. You need to get used to people asking for clarity and citations. In science, we want to use the correct terminology, definitions, measurements, and calculations always. Many times, responses are digging deeper into what you claimed so we can either agree or disagree with you. Saying nothing is like tacit agreement, so you may get pushback on some assertions until we better understand what you're saying. We attack ideas here, but never people. This is scientific rigor, or what passes for it on a free science discussion forum moderated by volunteers.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010218021003345 The missing bit of information is what replaced the missing bit of oxygen in the atmosphere. If the 10% oxygen was replaced by CO2, it could be a huge problem. Also, the study I linked to above states that you won't get flames until you reach 15%, at least with particleboard. I'm not sure blowing on it will increase the O2 enough.

I don't think 10% is enough to keep mental functions operating, so whether you could understand what you were seeing is questionable. It's also doubtful you would have the strength to blow on anything, much less drag yourself to where the embers are. It wouldn't take much effort to exhaust you.

I disagree that the fundamental issue here is "What wouldn’t you pay to save your life?" I think it's "Why should saving lives be based on what you can pay?" Sorry if that's too pedantic. It's for-profit thinking that drives stupid decisions like the one you describe in your OP. Money over medicine. It's cheaper to jab you than to pay an outsourced third party extra to have the right meal on hand. What if the fire department worked that way? "Your house is on fire? What wouldn't you pay for us to put it out?" Me personally, I think making meals friendly to ALL patients recuperating from medical procedures is a big step towards humane healthcare. I can't imagine recovery without the right food to eat. Also personally, I think 11 out of 100 is a huge fraction when it comes healthcare. If it were up to me, I'd make fewer bombs and sink more money into cures. And in the meantime, stop wasting insulin.

Even outside of medicine, we're seeing that the only loans the banks are interested in are the ones that offer a small but almost guaranteed ROI. The mediocrity this is unleashing on the American public is disgusting. We're seeing a LOT of new restaurants that don't actually cook anything on their own, but rather have some kind of arrangement with their foodservice provider for instant meals of an astonishing variety. Many US restaurants now offer everything from pizza to tacos to fish & chips to cheesesteak sandwiches to burgers, with an emphasis on variety over quality. It wasn't an implication at all. And why are you using a definition of "tiny fraction" based on you or me? Ultimately, it's the executive suite at the various healthcare providers who define the kind and amount of resources they'll spend on you or any group.

What are you "countering"? There's a percentage number where the bean counters determine that a new process will be more profitable for them, and they don't change until that percentage number is reached. Right now you're just 11 people out of 100 to them, so obviously that percentage is too low, and they continue to NOT offer anything that will cost them extra. The fact that you have "a greater propensity to be hospitalized" means that saving money when treating you helps them maintain profit more easily. I also worry that some cell therapy recently introduced will struggle if it works well, simply because it would impact the sale of insulin and all related products. Medicine and profit are not a good mix. When Salk developed the polio vaccine, there were DOCTORS who objected because they made a LOT of money prescribing braces and treatments for polio patients. They were angry that he ruined their investments. Insurance in the US changed just before I could take advantage of the old system, where one could buy medical insurance based on actuarial tables with premiums based according to your age. They knew by the numbers on average how much medical attention their clients would need in their lifetimes. If you were 20 when you signed up, you paid very little. The insurance company assumed you'd be with them for life, since a change in insurors means they base your premiums on your new age. Then Nixon and Kaiser got together and cooked up the whole "managed" healthcare system we have now. Monumental joke.

The cost of the extra insulin is less than the cost of maintaining meals for a specialty group. These types of decisions will always be made as long as medical treatment is administered from a privately-owned model. Profit is #1 and healthcare follows somewhere after that. It becomes obvious when you look at the insurance side. Most insurance actually makes some sense. You have a house/boat/car/life that you can figure out the exact worth of in order to insure it properly, but medical insurance isn't like that. You can't know how much or how little medical treatment you may need over your life. I'm not sure how to do it, but medicine in general needs to stop thinking about how much money it can generate and start focusing on helping people live a higher quality, more healthful life.

! Moderator Note We don't allow plagiarism at this forum. If you quote the work of someone else, you need to cite the source and give credit where it's due.

I'm asking for a response from richard01, to see if they're posting in good faith on our discussion board. The evidence points elsewhere.

Citation?

... by clicking on "Quote" at the bottom of the post you want to quote, or by clicking the "+" next to it if you're quoting multiple posts.

Fallacious reasoning is your enemy here. It's insulting when someone bothers to explain something to you and then you reply using logical fallacies or some twisted version of what they said. This, for example, is a classic strawman: I found this extremely insulting. This got you 4 downvotes. It reminds me of the nationalist zealots who respond to any criticism of war with "If you think our troops don't need any support, ok, whatever". As a response, it seemed petulant and childish. Nobody suggested we already know everything about space. And btw, science is NOT about finding answers to questions. It's about finding the explanations that have the most evidence to support them, so we can trust those explanations, and keep looking for better ones. If you think you've found the answer to a question, you stop looking, and we definitely don't want that.

richards1 has been banned for bad faith arguments and plagiarism.

! Moderator Note Most of your posts seem put together by a bot or something, but this one is clearly designed in bad faith, so you're out of here. Please stop opening accounts at our discussion forum.

But since they also need to profit from loans, Islamic banks take a portion of profits from the venture the money was loaned on. It's still interest on the loan, but it looks more like a partnership agreement where the bank invests temporarily in the business. This makes absolutely no sense. You failed to quote who this is in response to, so we don't know what "that" could be or why it's on "another level" (something joigus actually said on page 1). It's looking more and more like you're not a real person, and have no real interest in science discussion other than to improve your AI features. Any last words?

! Moderator Note By using quotation marks, you imply these things were said by someone in this thread, but nobody said these things except you. You've also used several disparate posting styles that make you look like a bot of some sort. If I see more evidence that your account isn't legitimate, you'll be banned.

What folks like that don't understand is that we've heard, debunked, reheard, and redebunked everything they keep on about. They don't listen when their ideas are picked apart, because they lack the critical thinking skills required. It does no good to explain it to them because they don't understand and don't want to. So depriving the tripe of oxygen isn't trying to silence them, it's more like trying to shut them up because they won't stop yelling ignorant filth at the top of lungs while visiting our study group. I'd love it if the next overt racist was met with a wall of indifference.

disobey has been banned for bad faith arguments, refusal to engage in two-way discussions, and abusive behavior.

! Moderator Note It's called discussion, and we do it civilly here. It requires that people question what you say, and it requires your good faith in response. You need to leave here and never come back. Go hate the world from your own frame of reference.

I can tell you're just going to be turning people's stomachs with your "truth". I'm very sorry for the hurtful things that were done to you as a child. Please get some help.

I think it's more like energy, which is NOT a thing unto itself, but rather a property of a system. But I don't trust your "truth" because I've seen no evidence for it. I don't know you, you sound like an arrogant asswipe of a person (not that you actually are, you just come off like one), and you can't muster the courtesy to discuss this with anyone here. You just keep blogging with your fingers in your ears. You're boring!

Which truth? Whose truth? Ah, the REAL truth! Don't be absurd, truth is defined by the person speaking. The whole reason behind the scientific method is to remove subjectivity from our observations and measurements. Again, science is looking for the explanations that have the most evidence for them. So, having been corrected, does this change your personal outlook on the "truth"?

This sounds like more blogging. This is a discussion forum. Are you going to engage in this conversation, or just blog about the monologue you want to deliver? It's pretty clear that despite being such a smart person, you have a flawed foundational science education. That's not uncommon when a country doesn't put enough funding towards schools, but it's not an obstacle you can't overcome.

You've misunderstood time dilation unless you can tell us the velocity your "awareness" is moving at.