Phi for All

Unfortunately, you're ignoring an important part of the equation: reason and critical thinking. The books are built on data turned into information, but when you actually study the books and debate/discuss them, critical thinking helps turn the information into knowledge. I think you've been using this whole "scientists are arrogant" narrative as an excuse not to "conform". Since I have absolutely no contempt for you, I'd love to see you get over this stumbling block and gain something useful from science discussion.

Because he's posting as a moderator, not a member. His first point was that you used Argument from Incredulity, which is a logical fallacy, and against the rules for discussion here. His second point was that you're using a Strawman argument in your description, another logical fallacy, also against the rules. And third, he's reminding you that bringing up something supernatural in a mainstream section is against the rules. You can believe what you want. Some folks here prefer knowledge they can trust rather than wishful thinking or believing based on faith.

So... you find it hard to believe something, and that leads you to believe in magic?! Why do you need the supernatural when you have changes in gene variants within a population every generation for millions of years?

This sentiment doesn't clash with owning a smart phone with a video recorder. How about a booth for Philosophical Help $5 (The Philosopher is IN)?

This also requires you to gather multiple customers in one place (rent?) so you can charge them all to hear your explanation. A phone would let you deal with individuals throughout the day, or record your explanations for later use.

For a philosopher? Word of mouth.

You made this generalization, not me. I was commenting on the culprits behind most racial injustice. But on that subject, I make a distinction between extremist billionaires and the ones who understand how a society works. Buffet, Gates, and Abigail Disney have both repeatedly encouraged Congress to charge a wealth tax. As I said before, I don't mind a little over sensitivity when it comes to something I've probably not paid enough attention to in the past because I knew my intentions were good. Questioning entrenched systems doesn't have to be evil.

You can find a following on social media for some uplifting philosophical content. TikTok has folks like you who share bits of wisdom from their own unique perspective. I don't know exactly how the monetization is achieved. I'd recommend focusing on the positive. You already have a short, punchy style, so I'd also recommend reading from a script you've written rather than just turning on your camera and pontificating. Only respond to positive feedback so you don't come off as defensive. If your videos are engaging enough, there are people watching who like the idea of supporting you so you can create more content.

That's because the culprits of most racial injustice are white male capitalists who treat their dogs better than most people.

The steam turbine was invented around the 1st century AD, but the technology to make it do work didn't come along until centuries later. We know that a Dyson Sphere is a physical possibility, but we don't yet have the technology to pull it off.

Except that it's use began about the same time that the US slave trade ramped up for tobacco cultivation (1610 or so), to indicate that people on the list were undesirables, troublemakers, and deserved some form of punishment for it.

OTOH, I don't mind some over-sensitivity when it comes to racism. There are so many words and phrases that have inherent biases in them, or have racist origins, or help perpetuate stereotypes. Should you use white paper to blacklist someone for being the black sheep of the physics journal? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/#b39-jmla-106-527 I thought folks were being overly sensitive by correcting my use of the term "master bedroom" until I thought about how gender and racially offensive it was. It took me about three tries to learn to use "main" instead of "master".

Which wing design are you talking about? How did wings "end up"? Did they "end" at all?

! Moderator Note This is NOT what I asked for. One last chance to address the problems instead of leaping to your erroneous conclusions. Remember, you're trying to explain your ideas to us and persuade us you're onto something. Simply declaring your ideas sound isn't the way discussion works. Please do better.

! Moderator Note This is just soapboxing without supportive evidence, and nobody wants to waste time discussing anything with a soapboxer. Please address the problems with your ideas before declaring them sound. So far, because you made it up, it only makes sense to you, and Mordred is trying to help you describe your ideas based on tested, reliable mainstream physics.

! Moderator Note Keep your speculative ideas in their own thread until such time as you've supported it sufficiently to be moved into mainstream subjects. Keep arguing against the rules and I'll have to spin this stuff off to the Trash.

I thought a safety coffin was to keep zombies underground. That makes a lot more sense.

Robert Downey Jr probably came the closest.

I believe "beyond the unknown" is a specious phrase. Sounds good until you really think it through. Math is being developed by humans to describe what we observe in the universe. So far, all the gods seem to have made themselves unobservable to us, and since there are SO MANY different ways to believe in them, preached by SO MANY different believers, some folks choose to trust in knowledge gained through painstaking scientific methodology researched by generations of peers. It seems to get results, where wishful thinking and making things up hasn't worked out very well. Me personally, I take the Humanist approach. Some humans gain a lot of good things from their belief in a higher power. If a god wants to make themselves observable to me, I'll take a look, but until then I'm going to focus on accumulated human knowledge.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please support your ideas with evidence and make sure you can back up any assertions.

! Moderator Note genio, you need to keep conversation about your speculative ideas in their own threads. Our rules say you need to keep it out of mainstream science discussions until you've supported the concept properly. Thanks for understanding.

! Moderator Note I really wish you'd stop responding to them, or if you feel you must, please stop reposting their spam links.

It's not a matter of "know", we assume it isn't until we test it. Do you have a link to any studies done on this? You can't make the claim without some kind of evidence to support it.

Being incomprehensible to others isn't something to stone someone over. All one can really do is encourage more study, so the ideas you have can enjoy some basis in the natural universe we're all observing.