Phi for All

I don't agree that slavery is defined strictly by ownership. Even the slavery the OP is talking about didn't end when black people stopped being "owned" by white people. "Forced to work" is a different measure. It doesn't only refer to beatings if you can remove all the other options available, so that work or suffer are the only choices.

You should probably define what you mean by slavery. Is it defined by a lack of pay for productive work? If so, does paying a pittance make it NOT slavery? Emancipation didn't end slavery in many areas. In any case, describing African slaves as "lucky" sounds like something that would prolong slavery as opposed to ending it.

we2 has been banned for sharing everything except science discussion.

! Moderator Note Deadline passed, thread closed.

This effort seems aimed at promoting the continuation of colonialist practices. Foster racial and social inequality. Establish legal and political domination over the non-white population. Keep the indigenous population from mixing with the disaffected elements of your colony. And don't let them have access to an education that might lead them to expect better.

My hunch says it was Smokey. Bandit would have people in the picture, drinking and grinning. Smokey is behind the cameraperson, probably establishing concrete evidence that this is, indeed, beer. They already have concrete evidence about the concrete.

Probably from the same bowl he uses to cut his hair.

Florida claims to love it, so Colorado paid to have it sent to Ron DeSantis.

Ned has been banned. They seemed adamantly opposed to the purpose of learning science.

! Moderator Note Non-mainstream ideas must be discussed in Speculations. You don't have the evidence to explain your ideas in a way that satisfies our rules on speculations. You've also dug in your heels in your ignorance and now consider yourself an expert on time. In science discussion, we need to know that the people involved are capable of accepting what mainstream science has discovered and considers the most supported explanations for various phenomena. You keep insisting you're right, and you don't know enough science to see you're wrong. You should go somewhere else and start a blog. You can't stay here with your approach to knowledge, it's too destructive and detrimental. Goodbye.

The object IS darker, because there isn't as much light reflected from it. It would still be darker if you weren't looking at it. And if you keep removing the light, darker and darker and darker finally become darkness. Do you understand now?

This sounds distinctly like a bad-faith argument posed by someone NOT interested in anything but their own perspective. Many animals, including humans, have extraocular photoreceptors in our skin and central nervous systems, even inside some of the organs. This supports the concept that light and its absence are detectable outside normal sensory perception. Shadows also support the idea that as you remove light and its properties, darkness is the result.

You point out what you THINK are errors, you get corrected by replies but then you ignore them. People have been trying to explain that theories cover specific areas of application, and just because they're incomplete doesn't mean they're in error. The LCDM model doesn't explain the origin of the universe, but that doesn't mean it's in error. This is a very basic misunderstanding of science. Science expects to be wrong, because MOST ideas are wrong. In fact, the best science happens when someone comes up with an idea and then does everything they can to show that it's wrong. If an idea can withstand such a rigorous review, based on solid science we rely upon every day, then the idea probably has merit and deserves more of an examination. Just to take one example, you explained in one thread (still open and unanswered) how you found some math symbols off the internet that you used to explain the shifting frequency of caesium. You asserted that the physics of this was correct, but couldn't support that with any evidence. This is exactly the kind of "leap of logic" science tries to avoid. It's become very obvious that you're just making it all up and expecting to be taken seriously. This kind of soapboxing just wastes the time of those who'd love to help you actually learn some science.

! Moderator Note You'll have to support the idea of perpetual motion much better than this if you wish to discuss it. Please do so without using offsite videos, and also use mainstream science to explain any effects or properties. Also, open this new thread in Speculations, not Science News. This one is closed.

Here's a big part of YOUR problem. When physics is correctly applied, when the right models are chosen to explain a specific phenomenon, the physics is correct. It's correct because it follows what we observe, within the framework of the situation. Somewhere in your studies you learned that some theories are incomplete, and you mistakenly took that to mean they're wrong, or incorrect. Just because you need to first figure out if you need to use General Relativity or Special Relativity doesn't mean either are incorrect, it just means that, like ALL theories, they have specific areas where they're applicable. But this also points out the problems with your approach. Your "physics" is demonstrably flawed, and people have shown you where it fails, but you seem to ignore them. You keep pushing your version without addressing the flaws mentioned, and that's called soapboxing. And we're used to evidence in support of assertions, and you don't have any, where mainstream science has tons. That's what you're up against when you reject the knowledge of science humans have accumulated over the centuries. If you want to dispute so much learning, you have to at least attempt to be as diligent as the giants who've gone before us.

You still have to Submit Reply to post what you've written. During your writing, other replies will be announced, but that's so you can read them if you wish, not because anything has changed. I don't think you get a notice even if you've quoted something that gets changed while you're writing; as soon as you hit Quote, it quotes what was written at that time.

This assumes you're the only person involved. It assumes you never talk to anyone else. It assumes nobody else is going to add their votes. Worst of all, it assumes that huge numbers are NOT made up of lots of 1s added together. Absolutely NOT. As swansont noted above, there are those who know how much your vote can upset their plans, and they want you to believe your vote is worthless. If you want to give it a name, call it "a lie", or "misinformation", or "manipulating the uneducated".

Ned has been suspended for 3 days for hijacking threads with nonsense after being warned about the rules they agreed to when joining. Enjoy your weekend, everyone else.

Your opening post doesn't seem to address the assertion you make in your title. Can you tell us what lies are being used to fight Russia? You assume that "the West" is already "falling" and will continue to do so, yet make no arguments as to why. Can you give us more direction about the exact topic you want to discuss? Are you arguing in favor of Stalin (I liked when you called him "Stain"), or Putin, or is this just a "Russia is great" propaganda post?

KosherDill has been banned as a sockpuppet of several accounts designed to waste time through the use of conspiracy, Argument from Incredulity, and assertions with no reasoned support.

! Moderator Note This is not an acceptable opening post in ANY section at SFN, much less Speculations. It's clear we aren't going to be given any supportive evidence when none shows up in the OP. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note And you also invented that it's the most common form of depression, which is also known as lying, bad-faith arguments, and spreading misinformation. It's against our rules, and most people's ethics.

NewAgeReason has been banned as a sock of Adelbert_Einstein and a bunch of other socks. None of them are able to hold any interest in a science discussion.

! Moderator Note You don't get to write both parts of a science discussion. Don't do this again. Thread closed, do better.

! Moderator Note Our rules state that speculative ideas can only be addressed in their own thread in Speculations. You are NOT free to make up medical terms and post them in a mainstream science section. You seriously need to do better.