J.C.MacSwell

It's the fastest thing I've tried on a pinewood derby car. So plastic wheel on a polished nail axle. These are short races, around 30 feet or so, with very little load, but it was faster and for longer than teflon spray (or graphite powder, among other lubrication experiments). So I should add the caveat that I haven't tried it on anything else in direct comparison for heavier use. The teflon spray I tried was a marine spray to lubricate small fittings and bolt rope track.

Assuming you haven't heat distorted them beyond repair with your hair dryer you might want to try a little teflon spray lubricant. (or better believe it or not, a little Armor All).

Unfortunately a photon's view doesn't count as an observer...as interesting a thought as it might be.

I just reread this again (the OP) and it deserves more likes IMO. Welcome to the Forums WW and I hope your posts are anywhere near as good. edit: I still haven't read more than pages 1,7 and 8, but the thought holds. Willy has at this point only posted twice, so I'm assuming no "weird agenda" or subconscious need to discriminate, and taking his words at face value.

Personally, I think both binary and multiple categories are useful, and that what you are suggesting for 3 could be as well...but is certainly as problematic as binary. (not that any "multiple" system of classification would be fully useful) Without using a strict definition of male and female, "not male or female" doesn't lead to accuracy or precision.

How is this better, or offer more value, than male or female...done? What definition of strictly male and strictly female would enable this?

Fair enough. How do you define a third category of "Other" with regard to sex? I see this as more problematic than binary or multiple categories.

He seemed to think if one was used, all intersex would need to be classified together as either male or female. He either has a binary system in mind that is rather unique, fails to see any value in using one...or something else... Thus the questions. For successful and natural human reproduction? At what point do you feel extra categories might become necessary? What I said in my first post in this thread: I certainly haven't resisted very long as I've just started posting in this thread. What I mean by sex depends on the context required for what is being discussed. That could be in binary terms, or otherwise.

Why do you insist all of them be male or female? Do you think they are all the same? How is that useful, when defining your binary system? Or are you claiming binary classification of either male or female is not useful, and should never be used by anyone? For the purpose defining human reproduction you can , usefully, divide humans into two categories in a binary system, male or female, with very separate and distinct roles. There is no third category that take part in human reproduction. Maybe one will evolve over time (unlikely), but currently not.

If you've chosen to use a binary system? One or the other.

If I'm using a binary definition they are male or female. If not they could be male, female, or something else.

If you want to define sex that way yes. More than 2. If you prefer a different definition where it's just 2, then it's just 2, and this can be a reasonably justified definition for humans. It depends on how you define sexes. A detached scientist could use either. If you are emotionally attached to one in particular...you're probably trying to compensate for human biology rather than doing human biology.

There are two sexes required to create a human, correct? No human can do it alone, and a third (or more) is never required, facilitation of the other two notwithstanding. But not all can take part in reproduction. Could be age, to young or old or another reason. It doesn't mean those individuals should be less respected, but for purposes of biological reproduction human sexuality is binary. edit: or have i missed something? Has there ever been an individual that can sucessfully reproduce on more than one side of the equation?

There's probably something to this but I don't believe we are born knowing what colour our skin is (or what other characteristics we will turn out to have). We just have an instinct to be tribal, as that is what (among other "attributes") got us here through evolution. I think we get comfortable with the people around us and those that don't look similar to them seem "foreign". It probably helps to have positive interactions with many different peoples, especially in our formative years. Assuming some truth to that, survival of humanity might depend to some extent on multiculturalism and multiracial communities.

My bad on the wording. Not posted for me in particular...it just wouldn't surprise me if it was right there, for everyone, but I continuously missed it. Edit: Also didn't mean posted by Studiot...I meant posted in a totally different context. Edit again: Right in the name of the subforum! Politics What's going on in the world and how it relates to science.

It wouldn't surprise me if that was conspicuously posted for me to read, but I honestly was not aware of that.

If you want to hypothesize, you want to do so while comparing to standard theory and/or experiment, correct? Comparing it to other hypothesis or speculations, unless they are well understood, can derail your line of inquiry pretty quickly, private conversations aside.

Other than...you know...clarifying with accurate points of physics in a physics thread?

When writing laws to keep people safe, maybe a safety factor higher than 0.99 should be considered.

+1 So...essentially two totally "law abiding" citizens can meet in the street, and because each is legally allowed to shoot the other if they feel threatened...and since each is armed with deadly force...they should feel threatened...so...what's to stop them? I'm sure there's more to it than that...but if it's a crowd and not just two individuals...with emotionally opposing views...how much of a margin of safety can exist? Twice as old?

We are aware of that...but we share the idea that we are personally almost always right...and the others not quite so much...

What optimal size of stick should one take into a crowd wielding AR 15s?

I don't think so. He could have done the same damage, but it would have been much harder. This is why laws restricting the carrying of given types and levels of weapons, and when and where, are vital.

Let's take the root cause off the table, and discuss around the periphery?

The "Higher Power" is answering to experiment.