Phi for All

For a perfumer, making cents by making scents make sense.

The theories don't fail until they're applied where they're not supposed to be applied, and I think you've taken that to mean they don't explain everything and therefore are flawed. For some reason, when we try to correct you, you think we "don't want to hear what you have to say". We've been asking nicely for you to tell us what you mean but you're too busy bitching about "failed theories" to explain it. Can you at least explain why you think BB theory is wrong after so many have pointed out some of your misunderstandings? If you could address some of those criticisms, it might help you formulate your ideas in a way that you can explain to others.

Here's a dashboard showing what's up in orbit currently: https://satellitedashboard.org/

! Moderator Note Nobody cares about your opinion. You're making scientific claims and then refusing to back them up with supportive evidence. You can't hide behind "opinion" when you're claiming things that can be shown otherwise. If you think science is guessing about the BB, PLEASE SHOW WHERE, and if you think electromagnetic fields support your idea, then PLEASE SHOW HOW. It's up to you to explain your conjectures and assertions, to persuade us that your idea has merit. PLEASE stop making disparaging remarks about all of science, since it invites off-topic defense. Focus on what you think your idea means, and how it might be observed or measured. If all you have is insistence and hand waving, you aren't convincing anybody.

! Moderator Note Support this in a Speculations thread.

This is part of what you don't understand about science. Public understanding of science is at a crossroads, but science itself doesn't travel on roads at all, nor does it come to choices in direction that might be called crossroads. Science follows the preponderance of evidence to arrive at the best supported explanations for various phenomena. It models that behavior and uses success to predict other outcomes. The choice of models depends on the area of application. Your approach guarantees you'll never understand that because you think it's about discerning a single path rather than monitoring how nature behaves. If you do start a Speculations thread about your idea, focus on how you can express your idea without using terms you've made up, and present as much evidence as you can to support what you're saying. Things you say you "know from experience" are anecdotal and subjective, and we're looking for as much objectivity as possible.

You don't even have to make the mountain unclimbable if the knowledge of mountain climbing is learned from the tree. This god seems like a scheming old white guy trying to deflect blame onto imagined villains and keep us bickering among ourselves so he can stay in power.

It was clear she didn't want to be saying those things about her former bosses. It was also clear she's done trying to defend Nero's fiddling around while Rome burned. She wanted to work that close to the Oval Office, and instead got a three ring freak show where the Ringmaster is also the biggest clown in the tent.

Destroying records of meetings with congressmen, conspiring to lynch the VP, discussing fake elector plans as early as Thanksgiving, co-conspirators requesting pardons, lots of evidence of corruption and sedition. The big question is why bring her in early in a special testimony? Is DOJ going to be making an announcement within the week, and the 1/6 committee wanted us to hear Ms Hutchinson's testimony before that? Could it have something to do with seizing John Eastman's phone last week?

They need to take better notes then. They should have been able to evade a ban using either time travel or "the supernatural". Or God. This is just intellectually lazy. God is obviously not spending enough on Guardian training. The turnover is brutal!

It ensures investment opportunities in private prisons, extra law enforcement, and removing the right to vote.

! Moderator Note We're going to wait a week, travel back in time a week, and THEN ban you.

It was just supposed to be a joke about hot sauce, never mind.

What year is it? How many fingers am I holding up?

At least part of why cases of depression have accelerated is because we assume whatever the person is depressed about is a personal thing, and not something systemic that may be affecting us all. We consider it their trauma to deal with, even though we're here to lend support where we can. But what if depression is just a normal human response to the kinds of crazy we're seeing these days in some countries? In the US, we're realizing how enslaved we've all been while celebrating our freedoms. We have inalienable rights guaranteed to the People by our Constitution, but we never passed an equal rights amendment to truly include all People. We escaped the tyranny of the wealthy so we could let the wealthy lead us right back to being underrepresented by our own leaders. Maybe we should focus more on what's causing such depression instead of finding ways to live with it.

Public confidence in SCOTUS sinks to 25%: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/06/23/public-confidence-in-supreme-court-sinks-to-25-poll-says/?sh=4c7171975fc5 Another branch of US government that does NOT represent the will of the People.

Hopefully the teacher will require evidence, and the transcripts of their posts will be reviewed. They clearly aren't the victim of insult and ridicule.

You've demonstrated zero capacity for enlightenment. Even now, it's obvious you can't even be bothered to look up who Fred Hoyle was. It might make you feel better to stick to the pop-sci descriptions you've read about, but it makes it difficult to discuss the actual science with you.

Apparently, it's a mammal thing, and it works across species: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/crying-baby-mammals-all-sound-the-same-to-mama/

BBT isn't about the beginning of the universe. It doesn't even encompass the beginning of time as we know it. Fred Hoyle was a mathematician and astronomer, not an astrophysicist, and NOT a supporter of BB theory. He supported the steady state model, and came up with the name "Big Bang" as mockery of the theory, because like you he thought it was about an explosion rather than a rapid expansion. Gosh, have you counted how many posts you have, and how many of them contain incorrect information? Your signal to noise ratio isn't good. You make a LOT of assertions that are wrong, and then seem to move on to the next before acknowledging your mistakes.

You're wrong. It's a rapid expansion of all there is, NOT an explosion into another space with a center of the explosion. The universe is all there is. It's a tough concept, and you're not the first to get it wrong. You're not even the most stubborn. Many people waste their lives on misunderstandings, and we're hoping that's not going to happen with you.

If we sweated out any significant amount of noxious substances, our clothing would show the effects. And our skin is actually a barrier against toxins, so it's not a good mechanism for the body to use. The scam that really gets me is the electrodes in the foot bath that allegedly remove "toxins" through the soles of the feet, and you know it's working because the water looks rusty and brown.

If this was true, average life expectancy would have been greater in the past when pollution levels were lower. Instead, we live longer now. I get the feeling you didn't listen to the earlier comments about "toxins" and how they're mostly made up by people wanting you to buy their "cleansers". It can't be "due to these toxins which build up in our bodies during the course of our lives", because that's not what happens. Our bodies have the ability to clean up waste and debris at the cellular level. We end up dying because these systems become less effective as we age.

How can the best current explanation be the answer to a question when the explanation could change with new information? Perhaps this is just semantics, but to me an "answer" is going to be the same today as it was a hundred years ago, or a hundred years from now. "Four" is an answer to "What is 2+2?" The explanation for how allele changes within a population over time can cause evolutionary changes in a species is never going to be an answer. It's always going to be a vibrant, maturing theory that explains the process to best of our current knowledge.

Your answer to your question is correct, but the last sentence is off by a little. You can't have a bottle of height or weight, but NOT "just like" you can't have a bottle of sound. Height and weight are measurements in this instance, but sound is always an event. Like lightning or fire, sound requires the right conditions before it happens, and when the conditions are right, it's practically inevitable.