Phi for All

Because he encouraged you to think? Someone who doesn't try to correct your mistakes? There are lots of science forums where you can claim anything you like. Mordred won't be there. It's difficult when you don't know something. It often makes the best explanations incomprehensible. Someone explains, you don't get it, and unfortunately you think you aren't the problem. As I said, there are lots of sites where people will tell you how great and smart and innovative your ideas are. If that's what you want, why don't you go to one of them? If I knew I wouldn't announce it, since that's his business, not mine or yours. Don't you think Mordred deserves his privacy? My guess is that he needed a break from people rejecting mainstream physics.

This seems like either a misinterpretation on your part or a misrepresentation of the facts. Are you talking about the refinements swansont mentioned? Why are you objecting to increasing accuracy as we keep testing and learning more?

Moderator Note You know better than this. If you want someone to understand something in a discussion, use your own words to describe it. Do your own summary, and don't ever do this video BS again.

"Used up" was a poor choice of words for what happens with yeast.

You only need a single rise for boules and more airy loaves, but for sandwich bread you need a pretty tight crumb. When you punch the dough down after the first rise, you're collapsing the big bubbles of gas you just created. The yeast has mostly been used up by this time, so the gas bubbles from the second rise are smaller, which gives you a denser slice of bread that stands up to sandwich making. My favorite method is to punch that first dough down just before bedtime, and put it in your loaf pans in the refrigerator overnight. The cold slows the process down and adds a lot of flavor. Fresh egg sandwiches for breakfast! Sounds like your temperature was too high. I think you're right, lower and longer should work. I do the same thing making a larger boule in a dutch oven. Increase the recipe by 50%, so the temp goes from 450F to 425F, time from 40 minutes to an hour. This I'm not sure about. I have one recipe where the oven starts cold and I use a bain marie beneath the loaf pans. It always works out well, with a very nice bit of chew to the crust from the extra moisture.

I think your mistake is in assuming your examples are valid. I've had heart surgery within the last month, and while the experts did all their amazing work in a few hours, I've spent weeks expending quite a bit of effort so I don't undo their work. The examples you've given are for medical intervention, where immediate action by professionals is necessary. I'm sure there are equivalent cases in mental health as well where the doctor does almost everything and the patient has very little to do, comparatively. The patient still has to put in the effort to maintain that work, like restricting their movements, not lifting more than 10 pounds, not raising your left arm higher than 90 degrees, keeping bandages clean, and taking the right medications. And the medications often require extra effort, especially blood thinners. Maintaining your mental health is more like maintaining a healthy weight. The doctor can help, but after making sure you don't have an infection or need heart surgery, they may tell you it would help to lose twenty pounds. They aren't going to the gym to exercise for you, so you absolutely have to put in some effort to achieve that goal. It's the same with mental health. The doctor can prescribe appropriate meds, but they also give you many techniques that will help you maintain a healthy outlook. They can't make you take the meds, and they can't make you do the affirmations or practice your social skills or anything else that improves your mental resilience. That part of the work is on you.

I agree completely. Over the years, I've engaged in discussions about the NHS, and I've watched as it became polluted by American capitalistic policies. You can't inject capitalism into a socially funded program, it just doesn't work. Capitalism takes over once it has even the smallest toehold. And those who complain about it usually didn't vote, or they voted for the party that wants to make the NHS more modern by looping in some private providers. And the more they do that, the less healthy healthcare becomes, and the more expensive simply because those private companies need a profit the NHS wasn't designed around. I really appreciate your input on this. I too have a hard time relating to the misrepresentations and obfuscations, and don't understand how butlers fit into the topic.

I love how his base is working against him, hoping to find dirt on Democrats. I hate how they can't figure out that he has to be in those files, since he hasn't released any dirt on Democrats.

Moderator NotePlease stop linking to blogs and commercial sites to support your posts. Stick with sites like the National Institute of Health for accurate information on medical issues. You're starting to look like an intentional spammer.

Where are the small government extremists now that the Feds are being deployed to do the work of local police against the wishes of governors?

Moderator Note Since nobody "gets it" and nobody has the patience to explain it well enough, I see no reason to keep this open.

If you spent more time on explaining your point in the OP and less time on admonishing those who don't understand it, we might be able to have more cordial, meaningful, and enjoyable discussions. You make this statement a lot, and it's akin to "go back and reread my posts". Not helpful, not even a little bit.

So don't say compare when you really mean judge. One looks for similarities or differences, the other seeks to form an opinion based on specific criteria. Comparing is more objective, while judgement is more often subjective, and science tries to remove as much subjectivity as possible.

This seems hypocritical, doesn't it? If science means to study and collect evidence in support of the work of the giants of science, doesn't it seem more probable that swansont's PhD studies and his work as a physicist on atomic clocks for the US Naval Observatory (GPS relies on relativity) represents a more trustworthy foundation for science knowledge? No offense, but you talk about "proof" and don't understand post-graduate studies and you make the same mistakes a LOT of people make trying to learn science from popular sources instead of taking courses.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

What an amazing display of hypocrisy! Admonishing others to study evolution in one sentence, and making a classic creationist mistake about evolution in the next! Bravo!

Insisting on some personal vendetta isn't helping anyone. Why would you think anybody is trying to scare you away? Do you think we want you to be wrong? Most ideas in science ARE wrong, but finding one that passes all the tests is exciting. We just want to discuss science. Mainstream offers us a hoard of accumulated knowledge that actually works, so we hold all ideas to that level of rigor. How else can we assess your ideas? Do you expect us to just take your word, or lower the bar just because you haven't studied formally? Even Mordred told you when your ideas went against concepts we already know and use. I know you don't want your ideas to be based on poor foundations, but you object when we use the only criteria we can. Please remember that we're attacking your idea like the wind attacks a stalk of corn, to make it stronger and better able to grow. Nobody is attacking you, or trying to scare you, or do anything to you personally.

Moderator NotePlease don't interrupt a mainstream discussion with this ever again.

For odious personal beliefs and actions? No, the people like you always break the rules in some way, usually standing on soapboxes making vile assertions like you. Your reasoning is flawed, it's pointed out in exact terms, but you don't accept the reasoning because you haven't bothered to listen. You just stand on your soapbox with your fingers in your ears. No amount of explanation as to the diversity we see in nature will persuade you from your hate and your objections to people who don't act like you. You and those like you are holding our whole species back with your insistence on religious and societal beliefs. You just can't seem to grasp that there's no single way of living with billions of people involved. In the US, people like you argue about their taxes paying to help those less fortunate. They pay an average of about US$37/year for welfare and bitch about it almost constantly. Meanwhile, they pay an average of over US$700/year for corporate subsidies, taxpayer dollars for already successful companies. How can we possibly "support you" when this is what's really happening, and people like you just keep handing our rights away to corporations? Lying isn't against the rules, actually. But when it's pointed out that you just lied, and evidence is presented, if you stand by the lie then you're soapboxing. Nobody wants to discuss anything with anybody who can't be persuaded by good reasoning. It's a science discussion forum, with a section for Politics. We have conservative members like you. It's not a problem until you start in with hard right propaganda, authoritarian posturing, and blatantly fascist points of view. Nobody sponsors us. Volunteer moderation staff. It's usually not a problem until we get paid provocateurs pushing non-science agendas.

And you obviously missed the part where it was an attempt by the government to prohibit 1A speech, and so it was struck down by SCOTUS. We aren't the government so claiming 1A rights here is just wrong, so you should admit that. Or are you talking about plagiarizing all those anonymous writers the AI copies from? Is that the anonymity you're trying to protect?

A reasonable person would have said, "Sorry, I was wrong about my first amendment rights, and thanks for correcting me." You? You double down on ignorance and admonish swansont for an "obvious error". You have more to overcome than your lack of science knowledge. You're your own biggest obstacle to learning.

This suggestion is ignorant, offensive, and represents the worst aspects of humanity. Disgraceful behavior, imo.

Build on what we already observe and have studied extensively, using theories that have mountains of evidence to support them. Take advantage of accumulated human knowledge. If you don't know these theories, you should study them academically. Discovery happens when someone who understands enough is able to add a new piece to the jigsaw puzzle. Science is like that, new knowledge stemming from a connection to the old knowledge. Sorry if I've said this to you before, but no matter what you attempt to do, if you only know a small part of how to do it, you have to make up the rest. You have to guess what the next step is, and like any guess, it's only as good as your understanding of the subject. We shouldn't fill large gaps in our knowledge with things we've made up; this makes us believe the explanation is "intuitive", since it makes perfect sense to us. Also, popular science articles are NOT a science education. Often, like the last link you provided, the authors propose mysterious sources or unknown forces at work in the universe. It's sensationalism, but it catches the eye. Every theory is limited in scope, and can't be used to explain every aspect of a phenomenon, so pop-sci writers can always find something "unexplained" about science.

Moderator NoteWhen you do have a summary that allows members to participate without clicking unknown links, start a new thread because I'm closing this one.

Once again, your assumptions about this subject are wrong. One of the current Admins (and part owner of the forum) joined when he was 12. He made a lot of bold assertions, had them picked apart by the members, dropped them to move on to other bold assertions. At one point, he admitted to me privately how old he was. By that time, he'd learned enough science that his assertions became supported hypotheses, so I told him it really didn't matter. If anybody thinks "you can't write this", it's not because you're 15. It's because you're generally trying to overreach your own education. You make a LOT of assertions that don't match up with mainstream science, mostly because you haven't learned that part yet. Filling in gaps in your knowledge with stuff you've made up is dangerous. The stuff we make up makes such perfect sense to us, because we designed it specifically to fill a gap in our studies, or to explain something we don't yet understand.