Leaderboard

Discussing problems in science is what we do, but we do it carefully, with as little guesswork as possible. We like to make sure the statements and assertions we make are trustworthy, and based on what we can actually observe. Your approach is to guess at what you think a solution might be, based usually on misunderstandings of mainstream science. When we try to point these mistakes out, you claim it's because of prejudice or politics, but it's really just that you don't understand what you're talking about to the degree necessary for what you're attempting to explain. You're fooling yourself here, and we don't want to be party to it. You don't have a theory (the fact that you say this shows you don't understand what a theory is). Your idea can't cover what a ToE needs to, because you yourself don't understand current models and theories. If you did, you wouldn't be trying to remake them based on your limited studies. You're quite firmly in the group of folks who didn't study science much in school, but now that you've read some popular science on the internet (which is ALWAYS claiming science has been broken/overthrown/baffled), you think you know the answers. And you've probably justified this amazing ability as reasonable because you aren't hampered by all that hidebound book-learning that scientists wasted their time on. YOU are different. YOU, and YOU alone, have a highly honed, intuitive ability to sense when things aren't right. You can take one look at an explanation, and if you don't immediately understand it, you can instead think creatively around it and come up with an alternative that nobody else sees. It's a shame, because you're obviously smart (you can't even talk about science at the discussion forum level without being smart). You obviously are attracted to science as well. I just wish you'd give the mainstream, collected knowledge of your species more of a chance. Humans are really quite smart about learning since we discovered the best methodologies, and we'd love for you to join us.

More or less anything above 25,000t that is not a carrier is a battleship. I am of an opinion that modern lack of battleships is due to cultural choice rather than actual lack of combat effectiveness. A battleship weighting 40,000t could carry 3-4 helicopters, 1-2 F-35 and a ton of weaponry. It would be a very formidable weapon

My bad, sorry.

No. Counterexample: The Kardashians

No and yes, respectively. First, no we can't explain, because the order* in nature just is, as far as science is concerned. And then yes, we can explain why we can't explain, because science does not pretend to be able to answer every question it is possible to dream up. Science limits itself to theories (that is to say, models) of nature that can be tested by observation. That requirement imposes limits on what science can model. In fact the refusal of science to dream up answers to questions that can't be validated by observation is what gives it its reliability and explanatory power. This is in contrast to some other systems of thought, such as metaphysics, that indulge in unverifiable theories. * This order is sometimes called referred to as the "laws" of nature, though actually these "laws" are merely man-made descriptions of the order, as we perceive it.

that's not how it works that's not how any of this works

I am interested in learning how to get pure chemicals from diluted chemicals such as the diluted alcohol i would like to distill it to see how pure i can get it and id like to start experimenting with forms of sodium and there reactions to metals and other chemicals or other forms of matter i just have a burning desire to learn and experiment i am going to a technical school next year for dental assisting to learn forms of dental care and than i want to go to college and get some form of science degree. Thank you alk for the help i hope i can become something great and have a happy and successful life no one around me is even interested in learning but i am. I even love robotics and smalk forms of engineering

One a point of detail it is untrue that something must have mass to interact with something else. Something can be a field for example, as with photons. But more fundamentally, you seem to assume one can identify one piece of nothing as distinct from another piece, such that one can speak of one portion of nothing "replacing" other nothing. But that's rather silly, isn't it?