Phi for All

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.

If I recognized that, it would make the word "all" meaningless to me. Except you've given us no calculations that are understandable. Even this sentence has no real meaning. What's a "human time", and how short is very, very, very short? Are you using some kind of religious definition of "heavens and the Earth", here on a science discussion forum? Does your definition include other solar systems and galaxies?

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/eggs/shell-eggs-farm-table You may have some trouble incorporating this information into your present accumulated knowledge, since it contradicts something you've come to believe unreasonably. It's worth trying to overcome our own cognitive biases though, even though our inclination is to believe even more strongly in the false assumption.

Before you base any kind of spiritual belief in the BBT, you should make sure you understand it. In the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model the Big Bang Theory is based on, the maths don't need any gods to be credible. The nature works out well without the supernatural.

Mostly because you made it up based on your limited science knowledge (no offense), so it seems like it's absolutely PERFECT for you. Does that make sense? Any time you try to explain something, your explanation can only be as complete as your current knowledge. Learn more science, and your explanations will more accurately match what we observe in nature.

It's a mistake thinking this way. The universe is everything. It can't be "enclosed". There is no point where the universe ends and "nothing" begins. If you're describing the universe, there's nothing outside of it. If you were describing a nightclub you visited, there's no part of the nightclub that is outside the nightclub, by its very definition.

With so many different options available, it can be difficult to know which businesses that need to trap grease will know which treatment will be most effective for their specific needs.