Phi for All

The one that attacked the Maths section and left a tentacle behind. He went by the name "Kraken", but I call him Ari.

Perhaps that would be a good way to steer the conversation, sort of give the OP something to think about. I did have a chuckle at the bit where the AI claims that chemistry isn't limited to test tubes and beakers anymore, then proceeds to list four industries who definitely use beakers and test tubes when doing chemistry.

If I were you, I'd dump it in the hole you've been digging and hope we all forget about it. Don't mark the grave. I know you can't see it, but the members in this thread have been using established science as the barometer to test your assertions. There is an enormous difference between mainstream knowledge and what your AI whispers in your ear. Subjective experience is anecdotal. It changes from person to person, and I'm very sorry you can't see why it really has no place in drawing scientific conclusions. Science is SUPPOSED to be more rigorous than your casual musings. Why are you even arguing against that?!

I can assure you, nobody serious here is looking for "the truth". That's the biggest pile of subjective garbage I can imagine, 8 billion versions of "the truth". Yours is no better than billions of others. But that's why science uses the methods it does, to remove all the subjective bits you wish were correct, hopefully leaving objective facts to base an explanation on. Rigor is plodding, I know, and boring, I know. Hard to hold most people's attention with all the baby steps and verification and experimentation and confirmation and peer review and ALL THE GODDAMN RIGOR that your approach lacks. If you make assertions here, you need to back them up with evidence. In the Speculations section, you don't get to make claims without verifying them, or at least providing supportive evidence. This is why you get pushback. What you're doing isn't discussion, it's soapboxing.

Moderator NoteActually, we're a science discussion forum, so we'd prefer to have a conversation about the topic you've chosen. However, the format also seems generated, and we prefer to talk to you rather than a bot or AI. Can you give us an idea of what you'd like to discuss, or was this supposed to be more of a blog entry? We're not your blog, but we'd like to be part of whatever science you wish to discuss. Talk about. Converse over. We don't need a lecture. We just want to talk, thanks.

You should put the shovel down and stop digging yourself in deeper. Making up rules to fit your needs is counterproductive. Science discussion forum, follow scientific methodology. Boxing forum, follow the Marquess of Queensbury rules. And btw, formal logic is for maths and philosophy, Mr Spock. For science, we look for reasoning, a preponderance of evidence, and modeling that allows us to make predictions based on our explanations.

Moderator NotePlease start these posts in the Homework Help section so I don't have to waste my time moving them there. Thank you.

There's science here?! Rigor requires a methodology you don't bother to follow. With such, it's easy to see where the problems lie, and the members have been trying to tell you for four pages now. It's pretty typical for folks who don't know much science to fill the gaps with junk they make up. Then, since it's based only on lots of ignorance, it seems like like a perfect explanation. I'm sure you've experienced this with subjects you do know a lot about. An amateur comes in with an idea, you know it's not viable but they don't, and it's hard to convince them otherwise. You aren't alone in this.

So what does that say about your "data"? This is a science discussion forum, you're proposing non-mainstream explanations, but you can't be bothered to explain it to the members here in a rigorous fashion. Instead we get lots of garbage that you think represents some kind of support. If you're entirely satisfied, you should start a blog rather than disingenuously claiming you want an actual conversation.

Please define "qualified", especially since you "put it in quotes". Would any qualifications satisfy you, or does someone have to be a professional physicist for 30+ years to "qualify"?

I did? My intention was to ask you some questions about it so we could discuss the parts I don't understand.

This is a science discussion forum. We discuss science here. Who here is "working on a similar theory"? Can you link to their thread so we know what kind of help you're asking for? If you don't know any physics, how do you know to trust your formula? If you don't know physics, how can you make statements like: Pick one of your predictions, please, and tell me how it works within the parameters of the laws of physics, You know it works? But you need help with it? Are both these things true?

Moderator NotePlease don't use a speculative idea to respond to a mainstream science thread. You have a way to go before your concept becomes a theory.

Moderator NoteMoved to Speculations. You need to provide more supportive evidence for your idea. Please provide as much clarity in how you're using these terms as you can. I'm removing personal information from your OP. Just not a good idea. We're a science discussion forum, and anything we can discuss can be done here.

Moderator NoteThread closed.

We don't normally delete anything, but this made me twitch a bit, so I released it.

They really should be hidden if flagged. I'd assumed they were as well. Why require staff approval if the post can already be seen?

The genus Homo is only about two million years old, not hundreds of millions of years.

With these floods, all we need is a heads up that we're being attacked. Once we deal with shutting down the open threads through spambanning, we can gatekeep new member registrations. What a pain! These attacks have no links, so a lot are getting through. Not sure how effective the phone number scams are, seems like such a long shot on a site like this.

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.