Phi for All

You think of it as "figuring out the drive" but that's NOT what you're doing.You're "trying to describe" something that hasn't been identified, and making up terms as you go. That seems like a waste of time, just guessing based on more guessing. Not very methodical.

But if gravity was weaker, our muscles would be weaker as well. It wouldn't make lifting a lighter block any easier. Our theories on gravity are a bit of a problem when trying to mesh them with other theories, but I think you'd find them fascinating. A meteor would only make the Earth's gravity stronger if it added to our mass.

! Moderator Note You have no credibility here with this kind of garbage. Your OP is one big Question Beg. You need to NEVER start a thread like this here again. There are plenty of crackpot sites for you to torment, so please take your goofball conspiracies and leave us alone with our mainstream science.

Are you looking for a list? The questions are vague, so the answers could be something like "a shock collar", or "throw the person in prison for a year", or "a squirt gun filled with vinegar". You should try to be clearer when you start a conversation. Your title is redundant; since this is posted in Homework Help, we already knew you need help to solve a problem. Your opening post isn't clear about what the school subject is (is this Philosophy, Social Studies, Psychology?). What is "Tips for Study"? Is this what you're looking for? Why isn't that the title?

! Moderator Note Not here, not in a mainstream science section, so please don't bring them up yourself in this thread.

! Moderator Note You're the one causing the misunderstandings, and I have no idea what you're talking about. This is a science discussion forum, and I think you're in the wrong place. None of this is advancing the understanding of science. You need to stop opening threads like this and perhaps read some of the other threads to get an idea of what we like to talk about.

! Moderator Note This isn't what we do here. We don't advertise people's books, we don't advise them on how to sell things to people. We're a science discussion forum, and this is NOT science. Don't open any more threads like this or we'll have to suspend or ban your account. Find another web site that specializes in writers and writing.

Your definitions are too vague. What's the consciousness and emptiness dance? Are you just making this crap up as you type? Consciousness requires some kind of sentience, and I just want to know what you think was sentient at the time of the BB? No more dancing, no more vague terms. Are you claiming there was a thinking, conscious being at the time of the BB?

WHAT or WHO was conscious at the time of the BB? This is the third time I've asked this.

WHAT or WHO was conscious at the time of the BB?

Which is actually much easier than making up this garbage that has no meaning. What exactly can you predict using, "The universe is made of only one string"? It's so vague that it's ridiculous. "The string is sentient" is equally pointless and ignorant. I can't believe they're saying this. This is called Begging the Question. You can't assume your "universe = string" exists and ask what's above it. You have to persuade us that you're right and science is wrong.

What exactly was conscious right after cosmic expansion began?

! Moderator Note OK, you obviously don't know how to read. I'm recommending that we ban you since you can't be bothered to support your bizarre claims.

! Moderator Note OK, let's put it bluntly. NOBODY cares what you think, we only care about what you can support with evidence. So far you've just made a bunch of assertions that anybody could make. Evidence and sound reasoning are the only things that might persuade us to take you seriously. Read some of the other threads so you can see what I mean. Otherwise, I'm going to ban you for breaking our rules.

! Moderator Note Advertising your products is NOT allowed here. Thread closed, don't open another on this subject.

! Moderator Note Moved from Homework Help to General Philosophy.

! Moderator Note This is soapboxing, and not allowed in this discussion forum. If you aren't willing to have a conversation aimed at helping further our understanding of science, then discussion isn't for you. We're prepared to support the statements we make with evidence, but all you have is waving hands, insistence, and incredulity. If you want to persuade us that you may be onto something, you need to do more than jump up and down and insist that accumulated human knowledge has been wrong all along and only you see it. Please do better.

! Moderator Note Ah, a third option. The Trash!

Enjoy your discussion.

Observation? Study? The fact that you don't use the word "logic" in a meaningful way? Definitions require useful meaning or they only serve to confuse.

Really? I'm not a master, but I know you've already contradicted first-order logic with this statement. How can you be a master of mathematical logic when you don't know the maths? And you don't talk as if you know philosophical logic, so what exactly are you a master of? You could very well be an evolutionary miracle sent to help us develop better ways of dealing with life on this planet, but you won't be helping if you don't learn what we already consider to be our best explanations for various phenomena. You can't think outside the box without knowing the tools inside the box, even with your capabilities. And wrong is what you are, until you can explain away the obvious contradictions. Being wrong is NEVER funny, but it is human. MOST ideas are wrong.

How could it? It's clearly based on the limited science you've allowed yourself to learn, and you seem gleefully impervious to learning the mainstream explanations others are offering you. Your ideas make sense to you alone, and it's been pointed out that many points are flawed. It's like you're claiming you could explain how mixing blue and red paint makes yellow paint if you were only given time for your whole idea to emerge. We have models that give us the astonishing accuracy to land a craft on an asteroid millions of miles away, based on the explanations mainstream science has developed. Your diagram seems to just fill in gaps in your knowledge with things that make more sense to you, and the best methodologies tell us that's a really bad thing to do.

You're wrong. Formal logic has strict meanings in science. Logic is applicable to maths, and also to philosophy. Both have specific meanings and even their own notation. You've misinterpreted logic to mean "this makes more sense to me". Logic isn't what Mr Spock from Star Trek was talking about. That's called "reasoning". This is another bit that makes no sense. There are plenty of rules in quantum physics. Logic has NOTHING to do with entanglement. I think what you really mean is that quantum mechanics are not "intuitive". Things don't necessarily behave the way we're used to in the macro world. You lost me again. Which two things are the same, illogic and logic, or quantum and "physical"? Be aware you used the word "exact". I, for one, would appreciate it if you'd leave out the parts of your ideas you haven't supported yet. You don't get to assume your "one string" concept is correct here.

! Moderator Note No, no more threads until you've established some kind of meaning for this concept of "Consciousness Hue" in your other thread. Let's not build on a shaky foundation anymore. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note Please stop right here and clarify why you think consciousness existed in the early universe. Focus on that one thing alone and try to convince us it existed. No more word salad, no more tangents, no more vagueness ("partway"?! "almost instantly"?!), and no more made up terms. If you can't do that, discussing your idea is meaningless.