Phi for All

Are you serious? Have you read what he said to them? It's unbelievable to me that you could even question it at this point. Earlier, he told the crowd they have to "fight much harder" against "bad people" and "show strength" at the Capitol. What the hell do you think that means given he knew the crowd was already armed, and that he had Proud Boys who'd already committed to taking Pence out?

It's not a matter of logic or competition at all. If we're talking about the latest greatest explanation for time, then it's seen as a dimension, a temporal dimension where length, width, and height are spatial dimensions. The four of those are a continuum that allow us to describe various phenomena in terms of their location in the universe. The predictive power and elegance of modeling the universe this way is immense, and allows us to successfully land vessels on other bodies in the solar system, which is like hitting a bullseye on a moving dartboard while you yourself are running full tilt.

But this is exactly what he did with his speech that morning, and is now hiding behind outlandish interpretations of what he said. He got them to do his dirty work using language that gave him weasel room to deny it later. And the plan was to have the military seize voting machines on the pretense of foreign manipulation, so if he can't get Pence to verify that, having the mob kill the VP and stop the count ensures that he gets little pushback when the military takes over. It's looking more and more like those magnetometers and the Capitol Police saved the democracy, for a while at least.

He wanted them rabid, wanted them armed, and wanted them to have access to the Capitol. Even a stupid puppeteer knows an armed mob shouting for a hanging isn't looking for mere coercion. The Proud Boys were set to kill him if they found him, according to informants.

I'd be willing to bet those are the texts about when Trump ordered the driver to the Capitol, and tried to grab the wheel of the car. The overall impression I'm getting is that the conspirators had a plan to use fake electors after they forced Pence to announce that the count would be decided by the states, and when Pence didn't play ball, Trump sent the mob to the Capitol to kill him. Secret Service knows but has a code of silence.

While everybody else was learning one set of definitions, you spent the time coming up with different ones. Maybe it isn't dyslexia, maybe you just need to read the books and study them instead of making all this up on your own. You might learn that the sun is NOT "a static point" that defines time, and that the opposite of zero is not infinity and every other number. And you'll see how to start an explanation with small steps that can be easily digested by your audience, instead of turning on the fire hose and forcing them to drink every wild notion that pops into your head about everything all at once.

Forget about time travel for a moment. Are you saying time itself doesn't exist because it has no medium to travel through? Doesn't a spacetime continuum account for that? How does light travel without a medium?

You're very welcome. You're being kind. After all, before you write a manuscript, you're apparently able to bear in mind ALL the assumptions, ALL the facts, and ALL the things you can AND can't define. You're amazing! Thanks again, truly. Making an effort to be understood is always worth it.

I stopped reading less than halfway through. This is worthless to anyone but you. If you're trying to persuade someone, you should think about format, and not just throw up whatever's making your tummy hurt.

It should seem suspicious that this hasn't been detected and monitored generally, considering how a dying person is so often hooked up to multiple machines and surrounded by loved ones watching them intently. Anomalies of light seen by a single person are easily explained in virtually every situation.

I like this piece by Perry Bacon Jr: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/03/democrats-2022-midterms-agenda-contract-with-america/ Take a good page from the Republican playbook (you have to go all the way back to Newt Gingrich to find one), the Contract With America, and let The People know exactly what you're trying to accomplish for Them. Give them 52 Democratic Senators and 218 Democratic Representatives, and they promise to tick the list and bring some relief to the vast majority of Americans. I blame Christian Nationalism for much of our current dilemma, so I'm not sure whether to add an item or not. Some of these folks are spoiling for another holy war.

Your table clearly talks about the Trinity, so I don't see how this is true. It doesn't seem like formal logic. I didn't see an accompanying video, but I wouldn't be interested in watching it (not a fan of learning from videos, I prefer the written word). I did, you don't need to yell. The reply my comment got told me nothing, and seemed clearly wrong. Stop yelling, please. What you've written is bizarre and confusing, and you're getting feedback on that. We're asking questions and you're YELLING at us for not understanding. Why can't you be civil if you're so smart? You wasted your 5 post first day maximum, so please help clarify if you come back tomorrow.

Personally, I think many folks have wheels on this particular goalpost for ease of movement. The Democrats aren't tough enough, aren't willing to do what it takes, can't organize the way the GOP does, keep tapdancing around the issues. Until they do, and then they're pigs in the mud, no better than their opponents. Heads they suck, tails they blow.

This doesn't explain my marriage at all. It seems focused on Christianity, which only accounts for a percentage of marriages. I don't see much to discuss here. What are you trying to say?

! Moderator Note Moved from The Lounge to Engineering. Speculations

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/11/world/james-webb-space-telescope-first-image-scn/index.html

Our tools ALWAYS function well within the limits of their design, but no further, and that's their nature. My yardstick can't measure everything but it does a great job on many flat objects between 1 inch and 36 inches. Nothing irrational about that. Just because you can go smaller it doesn't mean you have to. Function determines the level of precision and accuracy required, so if your maths aren't valid it's because you chose the wrong yardstick. Inches work pretty well when we're "building simple houses", and not so well when we're trying to make a particle accelerator work.

Unobservable behavior requires faith to maintain belief in a god. Faith is immune to the senses, measurement, and reason, so it gives you no mechanisms for sensing a god. Faith should be strong enough on its own without evidence or reason. If you can't observe a god or its behavior directly but still want to believe, faith is fairly unassailable.

! Moderator Note You were asked to keep your questions separate to facilitate discussion, and you ignored that and included all three, so you're getting replies to all of them in the same thread. You claimed to want to know the member's thoughts on the questions, but so far you're just criticizing general replies. And finally you're requiring a judgement of "sufficiently resolved" before moving on to the next question. Who is the arbiter of that benchmark? All of these questions have been debated, one at a time, for centuries with no resolution. Good luck with this crosstalk approach, just keep it civil and meaningful and we'll see where it leads.

Trust must be both confident and vulnerable to be valuable.

! Moderator Note NO. Please start a thread for each topic you're interested in. There's far too much crosstalk involved in this approach which would reduce clarity.

That thread was titled God is Real, and the OP didn't bother to support their claims. Neither did you, or anyone else who was arguing that God is Real. If your "views" are more of the same, it's not really what we're interested in discussing here. This is a science discussion forum with a section for discussing aspects of religion that can be objectively analyzed, and not so much your personal beliefs (unless you have some evidential support for those). But that's not the topic here.

I'd like to use it to calculate the height of a geosynchronous orbit, please. How can I do that using your idea (it's NOT a theory, btw)? We want discussions to be meaningful, and at least have the possibility of being valid. You should "put up" the evidence for your claims, or you should stop making them (shut up). You aren't holding up your end of the discussion very well.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum. We don't allow you to promote your YouTube channel here. If you want to discuss a topic, the members must be able to do so without going offsite or clinking links/watching videos. Thanks for understanding.

Sounds a lot like reports from a couple months back, which were proven to be forgeries from the Kremlin: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russian-war-report-forged-document-claims-ukraine-is-selling-surplus-weapons-to-african-countries/