Phi for All

Can you believe he can't even pronounce Epsteinaminophen?

Moderator Note Moved from Applied Chemistry to Homework Help.

This assumes a great deal. What if America knew the aliens were here for conquest? Do you mean they wouldn't want to accidentally shoot down a peaceful alien spacecraft? I agree. But I don't understand why the fact that they did shoot means either 1 or 2 from your OP. The drone scenario seems reasonable. The "fish" alternative is a bit bizarre. It actually seems much more likely that the current US administration would appreciate the distraction that confirmation of alien contact gives them. The Epstein files would fall through the cracks almost immediately if the US could announce contact with extraterrestrials. It also seems likely that, if they did confirm that the UAPs were extraterrestrial, the current administration might blow them up because they don't want us thinking as a species. They don't want the world to come together in solidarity. There's a lot of history that suggests a common enemy brings together those who don't get along, and that's the last thing the current US administration wants. Only because I like understanding the point others are trying to make when we discuss a subject together.

Can you explain to me why it's so important that the USA has ruled out aliens as a possible source for these UAPs? You aren't clear at all, you cite no sources, you quote yourself without adding further clarity, and when you quote others you don't address their responses. I assume the "Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh" post was implying sarcasm, but you need context for sarcasm to be effective. I don't think anyone knows exactly what you're on about. Why is the USA stance regarding UAPs as non-alien a fact that's never been truer?

I'd razor blade the flat surface carefully, then try some mineral spirits. I like the sponges with a scouring side (not metal) to lift the remainder off, then sponge side with soap and water for the rest.

I don't think the distinction is in any way subtle. Hating any single person is quite different from hating everyone in a group. Beating someone up because you hate them personally for the way they part their hair is extreme and ridiculous, but it's not classified as a hate crime. You have a specific reason why that person set you off, although I'd argue that if you extend that hate to everyone who parts their hair the same way, you've just created a new category of hate crime. Beating someone up because you hate the ethnic group or the religion or the sexual preferences or gender identity or the disability they have DOES compound the beating. Your hate isn't satisfied by beating up one person. You represent a danger nobody should have to be watching out for by just being themselves. Do you really think there's no difference for the person who gets beat up? Sure, you're beat up either way, but most beatings happen for some kind of reason, like theft, retaliation, misunderstanding, or the heat of the moment. If you think it's all the same, then do you think prejudice is just another form of anger or greed? As a white man, I'm learning not to dismiss the plight of others based on my privilege. Hate crime designations encourage equity in the law.

With this perspective, I can see why you're uncomfortable. Your example seems like simple assault. But when the robbery or the dislike is aimed at your ethnic group, or your societal preferences, then the motivation is an extra crime on top of the assault. If you're robbed and beaten because the robber is targeting Italian men who display their heritage in any way, does that seem equivalent to robbing and beating at random? The victims are chosen using the perpetrator's hatred. It's no longer a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or not paying enough attention, you've been pre-targeted based on a bigoted dislike of your whole "group". That's part of what makes TFG's latest proclamation so frustrating. He claims when people talk badly about him, it's hate speech, but he's an individual. Nobody is calling him a filthy German, or even claiming he's just like all white men. The hate he's feeling is deserved due to his own actions. It's not aimed at all golfers, or all presidents, or all reality TV stars. Just him and his poor leadership.

Let's be crystal clear about this. We don't attack people here, we attack ideas to see if they're strong enough. I gave no opinion about you or your ego. When I said, "It makes you feel pretty special", I was not only paraphrasing what you've already said, I was speaking from experience. I joined this site more than 20 years ago chasing an idea I had about String Theory, after reading some Michio Kaku. I was not a STEM student in school, so it was a pleasant surprise when I thought I could decipher cutting edge physics without having studied its foundation. Almost immediately some early members came to my rescue, and instead of rejecting their advice, I studied their explanations. I read the threads they started. I asked questions and got great answers, which helped me with reasoning skills and researching the next steps. I still wish I'd had a better background in science, or had the time in life to go back to school. I found that learning what others have rigorously tested is more beneficial to me and less intellectually dishonest than criticizing what I imagine to be wrong with something I've only studied as an amateur. Does that make sense? I'm so sorry if all this seems harsh. I want to encourage your interest in science, and science is all about the methodology you use to reach your conclusions. They have to be good enough to base future predictions on, otherwise it's all sand castles.

I understand. It makes you feel pretty special to think you've discovered a shortcut that means you don't have to be rigorous about your study of science. You have so much clever that you actually work better without textbooks, and you have the answers to everything that science doesn't know, or at least a methodology that capitalizes on your intuition for any explanation. You insist you're correct in this pursuit of Truth, to the point of calling others fanatical and unwavering. We're going to have a hard time showing you the specifics of where you're wrong, simply because you won't understand a mainstream critique. You say your "world embraces both", but wrt science, it's more of a brief handshake, isn't it? You haven't "embraced" the study of science as much as you've rejected it. You've embraced using intuition (which is just guesswork without the actual knowledge) rather than take advantage of accumulated human knowledge, and that seems counterintuitive to me. The theories we use today work within their defined parameters, plain and simple. We can predict where an asteroid will be so a spacecraft can be launched to land on it successfully. Can your intuition calculate the height of a geosynchronous orbit? You may be a bit hung up on infinities and singularities. They basically show us that our maths fail us at extreme distances, densities, and energy levels, but that's not an indication that our theories are wrong, just that our equations stop working. We don't really think the universe goes on forever.

The abstract will do to start: This work is your work, right? Based on Lockyers paper from the 70s? Not sure why you're having trouble summarizing it. We have LaTex available maths if you need it.

This is fairly common, that feeling after you read a popular science article that the questions posed there represent a mystery that lies just out of reach of even the author. Pop-sci authors are practically required to embellish and make things sound more mysterious and spooky, drawing readers in where dry textbooks can't. But the textbooks are where accuracy lies, and vagueness disappears if you're willing to put in the effort. The biggest problem with learning science in a non-formal way is that this vagueness and mystery encourages you to fill in the gaps in your knowledge with whatever works, whatever makes the most sense to you. This means your ideas are ALWAYS going to sound plausible, since they're based solely on the science you know stitched together with concepts you make up to explain a given phenomenon. You become convinced that you don't need to study science formally, that it might indeed be a hindrance for your intuition, a "constraint" placed upon you by hidebound academics. I know very little about drilling for oil. If I read some articles about it, studied it a bit on the internet, do you think I could figure out a better way to extract oil from the ground? Something I could approach a big oil company with, something that took into account all the processes, resources, and experiences required? I think I'd run up against things I didn't know, so I'd look them up and try to figure them out, and if I couldn't understand what they were talking about, I'd use my intuition to make a semi-educated guess. Right or wrong, I'd then base the next steps of my idea on that guess, and I'd keep doing that, perhaps making more guesses and continuing to build an idea on a foundation made of things I know and things I made up. The chances of me discovering something useful that way are pretty small, so wouldn't I be better off using the free resources available to me to learn the knowledge already accumulated about the subject?

This isn't quite correct. It's not your lack of knowledge in general. MigL gave you a very detailed post about why your idea doesn't match what we observe. How does your intuition deal with that? Ideas don't get shut down based on who has them. The idea either stands up to scrutiny or it doesn't. Your lack of science knowledge causes misunderstandings, but the real problem with any scientific idea is that it HAS to agree with what we've observed. The laws and principles being referred to in this thread have been tested an untold number of times, so any new hypothesis has to take them into account. We don't mind so much that you don't know them, but when your explanation is questioned or shown false, can your intuition magically make your idea suddenly fit the experiments that have been done? Don't make the rookie mistake of thinking theory means guess.

What could possibly be researched BEFORE the BB? A BH is an astronomical body with gravitational pull, it's physical. A tornado is an event caused by atmospheric conditions, much like lightning. Change any of the conditions required for them to propagate and the event just doesn't happen. A BH is also not a cosmic vacuum cleaner. So if I can show you that NOT everything in space is in balance, in harmony, perfect, and intelligent, this would show that there isn't a higher god, correct? Because otherwise you're soapboxing or preaching. To make all these assertions, you must be willing to be shown that they're false.

These claims seem specious. "All the gods", "exactly the same way", "they all said the very same things" are assertions you should be able to provide direct evidence of, not just wave your hands. Just double checking the "facts".

Moderator NoteMoved from Science News to Speculations. I can let you propose your idea here for discussion in our Speculations section, where you can try to persuade us of its validity. We discuss science, we're a science discussion forum. Support your concept with evidence and solid, mainstream reasoning. This sounds a LOT like "I don't know much real science, but I have this idea that could change science forever, I just need to collaborate with someone who actually knows science." If that's the case, you need to show us enough of an overview of the idea to support it. Or explain what you mean with any of your statements above. "...design energy systems with nature's balance" is too vague and handwavy to tell us what you mean. What I can't let you do is advertise for a business partner among our membership. That's against the rules. Let me know if that's your intent, otherwise feel free to start a science discussion about this idea.

Why invoke a god at all? Why include "us" when this is clearly not affecting everyone? As mentioned already, see a doctor. There are many reasons why you could be getting sick. The reaction is from your belly to the food. It might be bad food. It may be that you let yourself get too hungry and the acid from your stomach is too concentrated. It could be you aren't getting the right food so your blood sugar is low. A doctor needs to see you face to face and get information on your diet and lifestyle, and possibly family health history. Nobody here is qualified to diagnose you about anything. See a doctor, please.

Moderator NoteMoved from Comments, Suggestions, and Support to Politics.

What?! Life is an emergent property of organic matter. Spacetime is a mathematical model we use to show the effects of relativity on matter and energy. Conception is a vague and meaningless attribution that ignores the fact that all the pieces that contribute to life were already alive themselves. There's no evidence at all for this, and it's easily testable. If there is a soul, it's nothing physical, it has no mass or energy. Is it emergent, like the personality you developed growing up? Could your soul be your persona, the accumulation of your experiences, your wit and humor, is that possible? Because having anything like that use the geometry of relativity is just bizarre.

Theory is what science uses. A theory represents the best explanation for a certain phenomenon, based on accumulated evidence. Theory keeps us asking the questions in order to make the theory better, make it more capable of solving problems and making predictions. Theories are constantly being supported by new evidence, and probably most importantly, they are capable of being falsified by new evidence. When you think you have an "answer" to a question, you stop asking the question. This causes problems. Many theories have so much evidence that many people refer to them as "answers" and "proof". Science is skeptical though, and nothing is beyond doubt. In this case, you keep demanding yes or no "answers" to poorly phrased questions (in addition to an explanation). The observable universe has no "ends" the steel balls could reach. It's meaningless to ask "how many stacked masses would it take" (paraphrasing) if you aren't going to give us more detail. And how does any of this indicate a flaw in the Schwarzschild metric?

Didn't seem old enough to call it a drawing of a woman.

Moderator NoteRule 2.13: AI-generated content must be clearly marked. Failing to do so will be considered to be plagiarism and posting in bad faith. In other words, you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made.Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions. Owing to the propensity for AI to fabricate citations, we strongly encourage links to citations be included as a best practice. Mods and experts might demand these if there are questions about their legitimacy. A fabricated citation is bad-faith posting. Posters are responsible for any rules violations from posting AI-generated content. Citations would help verify some of your claims, which is the only thing we want to discuss, with you, not a program. Nobody here is interested in investing their time in anything but human conversation about science. Please support your claims with more than the bit of "real world evidence" you've shown. Persuade us this idea has merit, please.

Moderator NoteThis seems like you want to be suspended or banned. Is this the case, is civility beyond your reach now? It's a weak argument that resorts to insult. I think you're better than this. You've been posting contrary arguments in this thread, chastising others for not embracing AI in one post and then posting something like this, where you seem to be saying "You SHOULD be very afraid!" You also switch from talking about scientists and members here to "some random person" as if the two were equivalent wrt scientific knowledge. Perhaps this inconsistency has led to a lack of understanding and a lot of frustration. In a discussion, it's your job to clarify your position, and so far you've been leaning heavily on sarcasm and insult and skimping on persuasion and explanation. Please stop this if you want to keep discussing this topic.

Perhaps it was because all the exposition was front-end loaded. Many authors are pretty ham-handed when it comes to telling you things you're already supposed to know. With Dune, if you really invested in the first 50 pages, you didn't have to suffer through a bunch of clumsy mono/dialogues as the characters try to develop a backstory for you. It ends up being a roller-coaster ride, but it takes forever getting up that first big lift hill.

The first 50 pages are such a slog, having to learn the basics of thousands of years of fictional history. It was worth the investment for the first three books, but after that I lost interest. This was a love/hate relationship for me. I kept reading all the books but I was always frustrated with Thomas. He could never accept that he wasn't a leper when visiting the Land, and I found his lack of wonder frustrating.

While flattering you on how smart you are to have initiated this search.