Phi for All

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.

! Moderator Note I'm moving this to Speculations, since it now involves a non-mainstream idea. Please support your concepts with evidence and sound reasoning. Your explanation needs to persuade the other members using existing science.

Not to be confused with the latex version from DuPorn.

The feel and consistency of our clothing has a lot to do with physics, which is also fascinating, but a separate topic. Spinning fibers changes the way fabric moves and stretches.

! Moderator Note Moved from the Lounge to Religion.

Apparently it will be "adequately demonstrated" at a later date. In my experience, this means it won't be, because it's something the author didn't understand to begin with. It's something that didn't fit intuitively, but instead of asking questions about it, they decided to make up something that made more sense to them. Thus the windup, because "the Problem" needs some special contortions and leaps of logic for it to make sense. Thus the need to call the replies "mockery". The author is obviously a smart person who made the mistake of filling in the gaps in their knowledge with stuff they've made up.

I think we could actually deliver the former (because the latter works only intermittently) in this computer age. So much of our society (US at least) is based on over-complication of process, requiring specialty skills to deal with them. People with undue influence and power make our processes unnecessarily intricate so they have more profit opportunities. Lawyers add a language you need other lawyers to decipher. Our taxes, Medicare, even voting has been purposely made difficult so we need professional help. I think, if we removed so many of the unnecessary obstacles invented by wealth extremists, citizens could have more input into a less opaque and more representative system. With security that's actually concerned with protecting rights, is there any reason why we couldn't be voting on a LOT more important issues via our own computers, quickly, easily, and safely? There's such a cloud over our processes in the US, and it's hard to think about a life where the average citizen is valued highly and treated like our limited resources are valuable too. Where else do people pay into a retirement system that's labeled an "entitlement" by the wealthy? I don't think a democracy should be focused so heavily on taking resources from its people.

We have standards here. You need to be able to explain your ideas in mainstream science terms, otherwise it's just another wild-ass guess. And the core of the scientific method is you can't leap from guess to guess, you need solid ground for the foundation of any explanation for a phenomenon. If you stay, you should ask more questions. The biggest problem here is that you aren't trying to learn from the responses you've been getting. Instead, you just want to "prove" your idea is right. You think because you are good with a 3-D game, you have special scientific insights. You're ignoring what others have said about the topic you introduced, and still think it will just take someone else to work the math to model what seems so intuitive to you. And that's another problem: since you made it up without using science and maths, it only makes sense to you. You haven't been able to explain it in a way that some of our members who THINK in maths can engage with. Your ideas resonate only with you. You should easily be able to find some wild west forums out there who don't care about methodology. They might not be moderated, but hopefully they'll be civil and give you a listen. Sorry, but we're not even the strictest science forum out there, and most of the members here want to talk about mainstream.

If democracy allows an individual's stances to be represented in their own governance, then people should prefer democracy to ensure as much diversity and strength in their society as possible. The lessons of nature's biodiversity tell us we need everybody doing what they do best, and democracy is one of the best ways to support individual endeavors with a high level of public support. I'd like to see less of a focus on populism. Politicians on a pedestal aren't held to the same standards as those who are trying to advance an agenda favored by the vast majority of citizens. Populists make us more vulnerable to abuse by either a majority or a minority stance. I think a democracy is the best way to blend private, public, and state ownership into an effective economy. One of our big problems in the US is that we don't keep our capitalism and our socialism separate. Public funding should focus on helping the public, private funding should focus on profit, and we should mix the two as little as possible, imo. Treat public funding like the white load of laundry, and keep those bright colors separate. We do seem to constantly be vulnerable to wealth extremity. Revolt against a monarchy where a handful of people own everything, set up a democracy for the People that's wary of entitling corporations, and a few hundred years later a handful of people own everything again. Can the citizens of a democracy change that part, permanently?

If our universe had four spatial dimensions, it would be unstable. We wouldn't see planets in the orbits we currently observe, since they'd have to obey different laws to remain stable (inverse cube as opposed to the inverse square law). Lots of things wouldn't work the way they do now. I think I remember hearing that we couldn't tie knots in a rope because of too many degrees of freedom. A chair would need a different amount of legs to stand upright.

I expected you to say something shitty, disrespectful, faux-provocative, and off-topic, and you didn't disappoint.

! Moderator Note Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum. Owing to security concerns, documents must be in a format not as vulnerable to security issues (PDF yes, microsoft word or rich text format, no).

We told you before, he didn't. Critical Race theory is college-level coursework. It was an empty gesture, since there were no public school classes funded by the state. See how that works? But let me ask you this. Critical Race Theory IS taught in colleges, and the students are often shocked at how little they've been told about the history and origins of racism. Nothing they learned in DeSantis' public schools prepared them to learn what's actually been happening to BIPOC folks in the US. Do you think it's a good idea to withhold the truth from our kids, when someday they might be smart enough to take a college course and learn we've been omitting huge parts of history? And this is conflating Hitler's race theory with Critical Race Theory, which is an outright LIE. Are you just repeating what you've heard, or do you really believe this garbage? We look at examples of extreme fascism and hatred as a way to avoid repeating our past mistakes, yet you would elect another Hitler/Trump/DeSantis manipulator-in-chief? Remember that it didn't end well for Germany, did it?