Phi for All

! Moderator Note Split off to its own topic for focus. So when you're wrong about science and get called out for not following our rules of evidence, you call that censorship. Now you'd like to talk about how the Right is your ideal. How far do you take this? Do you believe anyone who thinks liberally deserves to die? What are you going to do with these people when you take over? Are you going to repeat the colonization indoctrination policies that worked so well for the Right to suppress all those people of color?

Great idea. While we're at it, let's take another look at Intelligent Design, and some of the other doubts regarding evolution. Have doubts about relativity, by all means let's go over the arguments against phlogiston again. Let's waste our time taking another long look, photo by photo, of something that's already been debunked ad nauseam over the last 50 years. Because all the evidence shows that the OP is totally sincere about expressing their freedom of speech, and isn't interested in casting doubt over one of humankind's greatest accomplishments for their own purposes without providing a shred of evidence. I know a few of the 400,000+ people who worked on Apollo. I know one of Buzz Aldrin's biographers, and I've met Buzz's son Andy. I'm going to step out of this discussion as a member and a moderator because it literally makes me ill to see the accomplishments of these brilliant people drug through the dirt by members of this board. Enjoy your mockery and disinformation!

I believe conspiracy rhetoric increases ignorance and fear, and if you're doing it on purpose, I believe you're a manipulative monster. I believe in the intelligence of the other members here and their ability to see the shaky foundations of your arguments, but too many young students come here to learn, and I'm afraid those are the people you've set your sights on. And I believe, rather I know, that you don't know what censorship is, even though you probably use the word often.

! Moderator Note Too bad this was asked in bad faith. Now it can't stay in the mainstream sections, and there's really no place to put it since you refuse to support your conjectures with evidence of any kind. Hand waving isn't enough here, so I'm just going to throw this in the Trash. This is a science discussion forum, not your blog.

I don't understand how your title relates to anything else you're talking about. You've devised this whole concept and now behave as if it's intuitive, but you're the only one who gets it. Can you explain it to others? I don't understand the bit about your noun diagram explanation being specifically about marriage. Are you talking about the marriage of maths and logic? Why do you think they're married? I'm glad you understand the confusion, but do you understand that you're compounding it each time you try to clarify? Every post you've made so far has gotten replies practically begging you to make sense and focus on explaining your idea to others. Do you really think you've made an effort?

But a square IS a type of rectangle, though not all rectangles are squares. A second is a unit of time, and I think you make a mistake trying to mix units and types. OK, so you feel the need to convert and mix these concepts because of extraterrestrial fears. I don't have anything for you, and I've lost all interest in trying to have a conversation about this with you. Sorry, but I have no idea why you think this is important or interesting. OK, this site isn't for you. We like clarity and civility. You need to start a blog for people to ignore elsewhere.

Can you pretend we're all sitting at a table talking, and you put up this slide to illustrate your concept? Now we need you to narrate, tell us what we're looking at, so we can have a conversation about this. Tell us, in your own words, what aspect of your idea you want to discuss, please.

Why can't distance change? Also, this weird mix of maths and grammar may make a lot of sense to you, but I don't think anybody else understands it. Are you saying Time minus a noun, or Time is a noun? There's no meaningful way to combine math and the arts in the way you suggest. It's like mixing some poetry in with your paint and expecting the color to change.

! Moderator Note You need to stop doing this. This is why we don't indulge conspiracy discussions, because you introduce suspicions you have no intention of supporting with evidence. Merely mentioning it seems to be the intellectually lazy alternative. NO MORE, PLEASE!

Bluster from Mr Xi, but little else. He's not in a great position right now, and has many issues coming up that need delicate handling. China doesn't want war, Mr Xi wants a third term, and their overall growth has stagnated. He won't do anything to make the markets uneasy, but he'll rattle some sabers and show off some tanks and planes and ships so he looks strong and confident. Both he and Putin let a LOT of their countrymen die from COVID-19 through neglect and misinformation, and the pandemic has left citizens everywhere uneasy about authoritarian leaders.

! Moderator Note If learning mainstream physics is out of the question for you, then I don't think we can continue. For some reason, you don't even recognize the refutations you've gotten regarding your arguments, and continue to think you're "beating" us because nobody can tell you why you're wrong. That's a big problem, because you don't know enough science to understand why it's important to know more science. You claim you aren't interested in accuracy, you claim being wrong would be devastating to you, and you claim that your intuition is better than learning mainstream knowledge. All of this means you'll get nothing from science discussion. You just aren't listening to anything that doesn't make immediate sense to you, or contradicts the stuff you've made up. Thread closed, don't bring this up in other threads, because you certainly didn't convince anyone of anything.

! Moderator Note This section is for defending non-mainstream science concepts using mainstream mechanisms. All of your theistic arguments are supernatural in that regard, so you'd never be able to support your arguments to the extent we require for Speculations. It's not a matter of my mind shutting down so much as enforcing rules the site owner has in place. I'm going to move this to Philosophy. If you prefer Religion, I can move it there instead. We still like supportive evidence along with our claims, in any section.

The secret to a great veggie or soy burger is to fry it up in bacon grease. Your welcome.

My experience is a little different. I think really mixing and massaging that ground beef makes it more putty like so it sticks together, but the texture once cooked is not the greatest. Less handling is preferable to me, but I'm not sure that makes the meat break/crumble less.

If it won't hold its shape because it's mushy, add some breadcrumbs to reduce moisture. If it crumbles because it's too dry, add an egg into the mix to bind the meat & veg. I've been sticking a finger in the middle of the burgers lately to keep them from swelling, not sure why that works.

What's the objective here? Are you looking for critique, or is there an aspect of your idea you want to discuss with other members? This isn't your blog, and a LOT of this is just your personal musings about supernatural subjects, and NOBODY here is interested in unevidenced conjecture. Perhaps you could remove the religious aspects and focus on some science you want to discuss?

If you're done being civil, you need to find the door.

You don't understand science discussion either, apparently. We keep asking you to support what you claim, and you claim you're meeting those obligations. I think you've failed to explain anything to any degree of clarity. Four pages of "Look what I made up!"

And ultimately, predictably, that's no answer at all for a science discussion. I don't know why you think it would be. We're looking for explanations we can trust, not ones we just have to put our faith in.

! Moderator Note If you wish to discuss this scientifically, you need to present these arguments along with any evidence that supports them. Please, no more unsupported conspiracy references (avoid the Joe Rogan intelligence-free, vividly misleading extremism). You need to start presenting support that obviously hasn't been seen, since all the arguments to date have been debunked. Considering all the evidence NASA has presented and testimony from the astronauts involved, it would be highly disrespectful and intellectually dishonest not to hold detractors to the same standards. ! Moderator Note To ask a question like this here, you first have to establish alien existence. No Begging the Question, please.

! Moderator Note No matter how much this might look like an attempt to sell a product or push an idea, acting as if they've already placed a commercial link in their post is putting the cart ahead of the horse. We need to stay civil until bad faith is demonstrated, please.

Can you give us an example of a black hole without an EH? "Singularity" is a mathematical representation of infinite densities and heat, and almost by definition can't be all that accurate, but every black hole has a point close enough to it where no amount of energy can move you towards a destination other than the mass of degenerate matter. I think this concept is messing you up. Gravity still follows the same formulas and equations no matter what kind of mass is involved. The mass of an object and how close or far away determines how that object curves spacetime. As Sensei points out, a neutron star has a smaller radius than the star it was formed from, but almost the same mass, so the force increases the closer you get.

It's mass is at least 1.4 times that of our sun (much less our planet), so it's gravity is proportional. Saying it's greater implies that gravity treats matter differently. A neutron star's gravity is no greater than a similar mass of normal matter.

By definition, it doesn't behave like a number, so treating it like one causes problems.

The problem with only visualizing from a limited knowledge base is obvious. You don't know how to visualize what you haven't learned, so your visualization may not adequately cover the processes. Maths would at least allow you to check your observations against the natural world. Do you have a way to test your ideas? We're following scientific methodology, and if that doesn't work for you, don't you think you need a way to check your process (besides "This makes sense to me") to keep you honest and accurate? Also, the problem with saying GR is wrong has NOTHING to do with your education or lack thereof. Please say it with me. The problem with saying GR is wrong is that you now have to show why GPS works, why time dilates in a gravitational field, why predictions of gravitational waves were correct, basically why the theory allows us to explain so much if it's so wrong. THAT is what you haven't come close to doing. And I don't think it's arrogant to baldly assert that your ideas are right in the face of so much science to the contrary. I think it's lazy, counterproductive, and a waste of time. YOU should be asking questions here, not trying to lecture people who actually work with atomic clocks and aerospace and cosmology, using mainstream physics every day.