Phi for All

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.

"Your honor, I found an interesting argument contained within my briefs..."

Why should science make sense outside of humanity? It's a disciplined approach for human understanding of our observable universe. Who else should it make sense to? If you're talking about aliens discovering our science after we're extinct, I'd have to guess they'd have a way to decipher our languages. They made it all the way to Earth, and we know how much intelligence and technology that requires. If they exist but don't want to prove they exist, I think that puts us in great danger. Why do they want us to believe in them without evidence? We're pretty special when it comes to intelligent species on this planet. Why would the gods make us so smart but force us to rely on magic and superstition? Why teach us about writing books if they don't want us to observe and learn? If they exist but CAN'T prove it, then they aren't omnipotent, simple as that. If they can't do something, they're limited. If they don't exist, then science isn't affected at all, since it didn't take gods into account in the first place. Science is fine with admitting we don't know something. If the gods don't exist, then we're born, live, and die as complex organisms on a planet in one of the solar systems of a galaxy in the universe, and along the way we observe and gather information, test and experiment with everything we can so we can draw conclusions which we can also test and use to make predictions.

I meant to be facetious, but now you've got me worried about who the crawlers and bots are going to bring to us. ... are they subject to Quantum Endanglement?

This is science, so there is no "answer". An explanation is the best you'll get, but if you want one based on mainstream knowledge, you need to clarify what you mean. Are you thinking the universe has one "end" that can be the start of a chain of anything that leads to another "end" on the other... side? If your balls are spread out across the universe, why would one of them melt?

This seems like a strawman argument against something nobody else is claiming. Who said a personal god renders science useless? Does your personal god tell you not to use science? Our view? We define omnipotence as the ability to do anything, so how is that limited? If anything, it the lack of limits on omnipotence that makes many people question it.

Moderator NoteYou've stopped taking criticism on board to help your idea, and are now insisting you're right in the face of lots of pushback from professional and amateur physicists. This is preaching, or soapboxing, and our experience shows us it's pointless to try to reason with you now, since you've closed that part of your mind. You've had four pages to persuade us, and many members were happy to lend their expertise, but nobody wants to keep talking to someone who stopped listening. Thread closed, don't bring this up again.

If drinking energy drinks causes short term memory loss, imagine what drinking energy drinks would do!

Have you learned nothing from this site? Science is NEVER 100% on anything. Theory is strong because it never assumes it's got everything right. Can't you see that the very thing you're dissing is its biggest strength? Religion assumes it's 100% correct, maybe you're confusing science with that. Do you consider discussing this subject with us a "tense situation"? We actually appreciate reasoned arguments over verbal judo. You're a maths guy, right? So why do you keep using the term "logic" wrt science? Logic is for maths and philosophy. Logic is a formal process that bears little resemblance to what Mr Spock used to refer to. Are you talking about climate change with human causes, is that what you believe? What else besides the irrefutable evidence do you think will persuade deniers? Does threatening them with the Wrath of God work? I've heard people admonish Republicans lately by saying that Jesus wouldn't defund school lunches.

Moderator NoteLogin problems with the old account. CPU68 can't post anymore.