Phi for All

I wish someone who calls their whole selves "conservative" could explain what's conservative about not paying your credit debt? This debt ceiling fiasco is just another way to undermine representative voting.

Does it make any predictions that can be tested? Is there a way to make the concept falsifiable? Mc2509 has bad definitions of "theory", "reality", and "proof", but I still don't think the multiverse concept qualifies as scientific. It may be a hypothetical consequence of physics as we understand it, but we can't test it, measure it, observe it.

I disagree. It seems like a pretty standard "Vividly misleading headline" followed by a bogus argument that for a theory to work it has to explain everything. It seems designed to lure the misinformed into clicking on the link and wasting precious minutes of their lives.

So you've apparently read a LOT about endless meetings and discussions, but you haven't read about global efforts to address global issues? That's weird, something seems wrong with that. Where do you get your news from?

VibeTribeScribe has been banned as a sockpuppet of IndySage.

! Moderator Note I'm not sure what you wish to discuss on this science discussion forum, but you've just given us a bullet list of assertions like this one that can't stand as an argument until you support it with some evidence or reasoning. So far, this just looks like you don't understand the science, so you've determined it's wrong. This isn't a blog, it's supposed to be a discussion, and you have far too many concepts listed for a coherent conversation about any of them. To keep this discussion from being complete chaos, I'm going to close this thread, and ask that you pick one of your research points to start a new thread about. We can discuss that before moving on to another. It's the only way your ideas are going to get a meaningful treatment. Thanks for understanding.

! Moderator Note This is just for your first day, to prevent spamming from bots. There is no limit for you now.

They should, they look good in tails. But they tend to shy away from poles.

How would that work? Are you placing them in different dimensions, or are you talking about multiple duplicate Earths in the observable universe where slightly different versions of the planet's history exist?

! Moderator Note I don't know what riled you up today, but you need to be more clear about what you want to discuss. This just seems like a biased rant based on your personal incredulity, and I can't see any meaningful conversation being generated by your obviously inflexible stance. This reads like you're standing on a soapbox yelling at us, and that's not a discussion. Thread closed.

What does this even mean? Are you suggesting the technology available at the time was insufficient? Are you so gullible that you ignore the fact that the major powers at the time were closely watching the space race? Are you saying the technology was so bad that we couldn't do go to the moon, but it was so good that it fooled everyone at the time?! This is why conspiracy is for idiots. You can't even put together a reasonable argument, let alone support your crackpot ideas with evidence.

! Moderator Note Please explain what this has to do with the topic being discussed, or what your point in posting these statistics is. If you don't, I'm going to toss it in the Trash for being off-topic.

Indeed. We learn to shun the things our group/family/community thinks are unattractive. Many heterosexual males equate homosexuality with weakness, the biggest masculine sin. I remember a kid in elementary school who used to rag on kids who wore glasses (I got mine in 5th grade). He shows up bespectacled on the first day of 6th grade, absolutely devastated that he's now a hideously disfigured aberration. He must have been afraid he'd eventually be wearing them when he was picking on others for it, and in that light it doesn't seem that different from homophobia. Not a natural response, but something learned.

"We" as in humans, or "we" as in "all heterosexuals"? I sense this is too general to be a good argument. If we're talking about "remote ancestors" from the OP, do you think early humans were as homophobic as they later became once the Abrahamic religions told them God didn't approve?

JacobNewton decided our rules need to be broken every chance they got, so we're going to free up some time for them to figure out the name of their next sockpuppet.

! Moderator Note You were warned against blogging, soapboxing, conspiracy theories, and bad-faith arguments, yet you keep doubling down. Best of luck elsewhere. Goodbye!

This assumes a spaceship designed only for travel. For colonists, wouldn't the ship need to be more like a temporary home, with facilities for growing food, manufacturing, and other processes you can continue once you reach the destination? The ship itself might be designed to stay on the surface as a home and power supply until a colony can be built. Tourism over multiple years of space flight seems even less likely, although I can see why wealthy tourists would like the idea of sleeping through the boring parts to wake up just in time for the approach to Saturn. Still, unless you can give those years of induced sleep back, I'm not sure enough uber-rich people would approve of losing them. Time is money; if you snooze you lose.

"Destined" as in "pre-ordained"? Or is whatever path you choose your "destined path"? Is "higher purpose" a religious thing, or is it tied to your destined path? Or is it more like Helping People is a higher purpose, and a destined path is deciding to Get a Job in Healthcare?

Fiction always skips the boring details of living, and sci-fi often skips travel with warp drives and folded space. If we were to send actual humans on a long space flight, it would be criminal to put them to sleep when they could be running experiments and measuring everything they can and basically taking every advantage of a human payload. It seems to me that drugging a live crew until they show up at their destination means that crew has nothing to do until then, which means they probably aren't scientists. And if they aren't scientists, why not take robots?

Probably "reacting" via the reputation system, to upvote those responding. Those are limited to a certain amount per day.

No more than meds that can induce a coma for a few years with few side effects. I was more focused on the reasoning behind why you'd have a live crew that needed to be put to sleep for extended periods. Movies are the only place I can think of where induced coma is better than having people live normally. They assume the craft is only for travel and can't support a normal life.

The only one I can think of is production budget for sci-fi movies involving space travel. Putting a small crew to sleep for a couple of years with advanced magic medicine so they don't age is a standard Hollywood solution.

I'm sorry, but this is a very lazy argument. The market for energy is huge and continually growing. If an investor doesn't invest, it doesn't automatically mean "lack of interest". There are usually many factors involved in choosing new technologies (we knew about electric cars, but they weren't viable until petroleum got to a certain price), but if someone could demonstrate over unity in a testable, reproduceable way, it would be a milestone accomplishment both scientifically and financially. It's crazy to think it hasn't been tried again and again. You shouldn't equate "no successful devices despite centuries of designing them" with "lack of interest".

! Moderator Note There's no reason for a new thread when the old one is an open work in progress. Learning by discussion is best when we can see questions being answered, mistakes being made and corrected. This thread will remain locked.

! Moderator Note Fixed a misquote and hid a reply to it.