Jump to content

Phi for All

Moderators
  • Posts

    21245
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    102

Everything posted by Phi for All

  1. People are capable of, in varying degrees, focusing their minds on the various sensory systems of the body, which apparently manifests as this feeling you mention. I can't say there is no advantage to it, but I can say nobody has ever shown a measurable difference between having this feeling and not having it. That's some good evidence that this isn't something one can exploit. If it gives you any kind of power, I would say it's a personal and subjective one. Perhaps you can learn to be more in touch with your body, or appreciate your good health on a deeper level, or use it to help you meditate and calm any anxiety you're feeling. And maybe, by being a person who's more in touch with yourself, you can actually affect others with this ability. I always appreciate it when my fellow humans are calm and confident and comfortable. But we aren't going to start another thread on how magic this feeling is. It seems to be a lot like religion, interpreted by each adherent in personal ways, thus making it a difficult discussion topic. I think there was talk of starting a chat on Discord, so if you're still thinking you're somehow tapping into dark energy, you might want to start looking there.
  2. I took your advice and now I steam my hard-boiled eggs and let them cool on the counter. I can't believe how ignorant our ancestors were, and they claimed it was "common sense"! Maybe steam is the way to go for water bottles too. Repurpose that old espresso maker and... OK, I got nothing. Just trying to tie my comment to the OP so it's not off-topic.
  3. And putting hard-boiled eggs in ice water. I'm still mad at our parents for that one.
  4. Or, OR, we could discuss science and drop the other drama. That would be fantastic! Objectively, I think most here can forgive a newbie for sitting down at a the table for a discussion and instead telling us how badly we do things here. I hope you can forgive some testiness in a time when internet trolls are attacking anything intellectual. And I'm sorry, but I don't buy your "experiment" explanation for a second, but I'm willing to see how productive a conversation about science will be now that you're done with it.
  5. It's not. I can pull up many posts from trolls and extremists that have posted over the years, and show you where they've used almost your exact same words. Many took longer than a month to use them.
  6. Coincidentally(?), this is the troll mantra, and what most every bully, stalker, and other extremists say when their behavior is questioned. I wonder how your experiment would have turned out if you'd actually discussed science on a science discussion forum, instead of posting what you have.
  7. You may like this image, but we're a science discussion forum. We're more interested in talking about science, so the social aspect is centered around mainstream explanations and learning more science. Most of your posts are NOT focused on science, so they're annoying and extraneous. We invite you to sit around the table and talk about science, but you choose to jump on top of it and shout like this about anything but science. It's unproductive and meaningless, so your posts seem like they're contrary to our purpose. Maybe you should try a site with more of a social emphasis, but I would warn you not to jump up on their tables either. Can you try to behave, or are you a person who revels in their rebel fantasies and won't give them up even when it makes sense?
  8. First, congratulations on spotting a professional using popular science techniques to create unnecessary controversy. "Blindly accept" is a bit intellectually dishonest, imo, for a professional physicist talking about Einstein, or any other scientists. That's not how the methodology works, and Kaku knows it, but his audience may not. And Einstein's infinities are the fault of the precision of our maths, and aren't supposed to represent true infinite force or heat or density, so it's kind of shady to say that part of Einstein's theory makes no sense. On galactic scales, the universe is homogenous (the same basic structure) and isotropic (the same in all directions), so this may be what he's referencing. I've never heard another professional physicist claim the universe was finite or infinite, and in fact the discussions here so far confirm we just can't know right now. Our observable universe is finite, but the entire thing may not be.
  9. Yet something tells me that substantially prolonged life might be different. The average human understands extravagance, and may even be used to heartless behavior from the wealthy when it comes to life style, but knowing your whole life could be ten times longer if "the haves" weren't so greedy seems too great a lure. People risk incarceration already because of wealth gaps, and I think an equally big gap in life expectancy would be much worse. Life is just that important to the living. Maybe I should just leave it that I wouldn't want to live forever if some people wanted to but weren't allowed.
  10. WRT beer in a bar, the word "discard" means pouring it anywhere EXCEPT someone's mouth. You may have found an exploitable loophole.
  11. If you can't make it available for everyone, and only the wealthy can afford it, I think most folks would view that differently than not getting to party on a yacht or eat caviar whenever you want. If the rich get to also live forever, I think the not-rich might resent that in a whole different way. I like Peterkin's idea of staying the same age physically for the rest of your normal life. Not more time for everyone to stress the planet's resources, but more time in a youngish body to enjoy our lives. I can appreciate how experience and knowledge have changed my perspective throughout my life, but living through an aging body is only teaching me tolerance for other people's aging bodies. If none of us had to go through it, I don't think our perspectives would be diminished in the least.
  12. Are you saying this agreement is always for the same child? Because more often than not, there is a right and a wrong stance in disagreements between children. I would hope the parents know the difference between that and mere conflicting opinions. I think it was Russell Peters the comedian who pointed out that, if you have two kids and one of them falls down the stairs, your reaction as a parent depends which one it is. One of them will make you jump out of your chair and rush to make sure they're all right. If it's the other one, you shake your head and roll your eyes first before levering yourself out of the chair to saunter over and see what the hell they did this time. You love them both equally, but you know them well, too.
  13. This is the real key, isn't it? This exfilist/antinatialist/promortalist stance assumes all suffering is the same, rather than on a spectrum like most human conditions.
  14. This is about accumulated human knowledge, and learning it in the proper order to make YOUR best use of it. A successful curriculum is what schools offer students, and access to immediate human resources when there's something you don't understand. Think of school and what you learn there as your "toolbox", the basic information you need to make informed decisions. And self-learning is great too! Using other sources (Khan Academy leaps to mind, always) on top of what you're learning in school is a great way to challenge yourself and find areas of interest in your studies. We've had other threads about online study if you want to do a Search. Discussing specifics about a subject with other interested folks is a great way to learn as well. We specialize in science discussion here, and I would encourage you to ask questions if there's anything you want more knowledge about. The members here are amazing in their diverse knowledge, and more than willing to help everyone involved in the conversations sharpen their reasoning tools.
  15. I'm preparing the OP for a thread on defending basic human decency as extreme nationalism clashes with increasing globalization. When it's open, I hope we can continue the conversation that's obviously off-topic here.
  16. ! Moderator Note No, we won't be referring to a person as "thing" in our discussions. Civility is still our most important rule.
  17. I was never in the Navy, but my brother was, and I've spent a lot of time on the deep sea. It's nasty, unwarranted, and tasteless to make such references about people trapped in a damaged vessel out in the void. Those folks are far from help and most likely about to die, and the fact that you chose the words so carefully makes it worse, imo. There's nothing ironic about the dangers faced when you're beyond assistance and taking on water/losing O2. Only the awful part is true. It seems I wasn't the only one to take exception at your carefully chosen words. While I completely agree that orbital debris continues to be a huge problem for our offplanet interests, I'm perhaps a bit sensitive when it comes to treating those in deep waters/outer space as humans from Earth first, and ignore nationality in the case of life-threatening emergencies. If we want to maintain the peaceful uses of outer space, we need to respect what it takes to get there and get back safely.
  18. Wrecked space vessels are much like wrecked sea vessels. Very little hope of surviving, so I find your "awful irony" more awful than ironic. Does this mean you wouldn't want to help them if that happened? What would that mean for the Outer Space Treaty?
  19. Because I never listen, and think what I have to say is more important?
  20. That's what I was thinking. It seems too small a part for any decorative grooving, so perhaps the groove is for a string or wire.
  21. A preacher on a discussion forum is nothing but a megaphone. I prefer conversing around a table, but the preacher wants to jump on top and tell us only their side. In all my time here, there has NEVER been a preacher who is a good teacher, imo. Good teachers listen AND talk.
  22. And that's the point being made here, that in circumstances where the BBT is applicable, it's not vague and incomplete, which is what mistermack's reply insinuated. I may be splitting hairs here, or I may have been confused with the infinity claims, but I wanted the OP to understand that BBT has nothing to do with "the origin of everything", nor is it considered to be a theory of everything.
  23. Perhaps you didn't read zapatos' reply ahead of yours, where he shows this comparison is like claiming his sourdough recipe is vague and incomplete if you apply it where it doesn't belong. Your reply seemed to cast the BBT in doubt coming after his reply.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.