YaDinghus

Something similar to water can still work as a solvent. Bear in mind that it doesn't have to contain Si to be a solvent, after all, H2O has no C either. Similar to water in this context would mean that it is amphoteric and spontaneously bounces around charged particles in its liquid state. Now I'm being deliberately unspecific regarding the structure of the charged particles. Electrons and protons are what we're looking at in water-solvent redox and acid/base reactions, which are literally vital to life on earth. I would imagine that if Si-based life is possible this should be the case as well. It might however also be small molecule ions transporting the charges in the solvent. However I don't know quite enough about chemistry to truly fathom such a solvent and the small molecule ions involved.

What does the test description say about it?

I once read something about when an old wise scientist sas somethjng is possible, they're usually right, and that when they say jt's impossible they're mostly wrong. That being said, we know now more than we did last year, but that's not much. Before we think about radically changing our body plans, we might just want to work on regeneration. We know it should be possible to regrow a severed limb because some animals can do so as adults, but we don't even know how to pull that off in any adult mammal,let alone a human. The challenge may also not be purely genetic

Proteins are constantly breaking down and cells need to produce more of them at a more or less constant rate. Proteins aren't particularly stable, they denaturate at a rate depending on temperature, and the body temperature of mamals is at a balance to ensure constant readiness for action and low protein denaturaration rate. Muscles aren't action ready beneath a certain temperature. And, of course, they also need energy to reproduce. I don't know which takes up more energy of the two. But protein recycling is a non-negligible aspect of metabolic upkeep. Proteins can be processed for energy, as can other energy-rich substances. Pretty much any intermediary product of the celular respiration chain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration like acetic and citric acid can be directly be processed for ATP recovery.

Don't forget scandinavian influences from the norse settlement of northeastern GB in the 9th century

Of course they don't. Conservatism is all about using time-honored methods. I was not talking about the the conservative ideology being right as a whole, but that select ideas are worth keeping for the time being. Keeping a small military for defensive purpouses for instance seems prudent. When people ask me why self defense is sensible, I tell them that as long as not everyone is a pacfist, every pacifist needs to know how to defend themselves. A market economy is also a conservative principle - or at least the conservatives claim this principle for their portfolio. Whether or not this is the case - I am for remaining in a market economy, just not a natinal one, and I am also in favour of some strong government oversight and strong social measures to ensure a good life for everyone. But work still needs to be done, and people need to want to work, so the redistribution can't be so strong that it makes no difference whether you work or not. This is also a conservative concept, and it will be usefull for as long as human work is needed. Once fully automated factories and harvesters take that away from us, and we are left with science and culture, this can be abandoned, and perhaps even a market economy, because I could do science and culture all day long for fun

I like my players in real danger, so I'd probably modify the ST's rolls. My brother's characters are always the first to die un battle because he runs headlong into danger trusting that the GM won't let him die. Jokes on him...

I wouldn't think so, either. I am not from the UK, but I have many friends who are, and some family living there, so I'm well tuned in. Though they are mostly on the liberal-labour end of the political spectrum, so a tory would say my perspective is somewhat biased. I would hold against that the fact that I grew up in the military and you get plenty of conservative there. My personal opinion is that there are useful conservative ideas (useful to peace and prosperity for all). But the rhethoric of conservative politicians, and those who these rhethorics are aimed at, are beyond provocative on the verge of incendiary. It's like they are preparing a reverse revolution, which is pretty radical.

Afaik both p&p rpgs use the d20 system derived from dnd 3.5

You mean his recent fauxpas concerning the 3rd Reich and Vogelschiss?

I know it because in Germany the AfD thrives upon the same sentiments as UKIP in the UK. Let's just say I'm neither a fan of Nigel Farrage, nor of Alice Weidel, and leave it at that.

On the plus side for Star Wars, there are some really good SW games for PC and consoles. I'm only aware of one Star Trek game. Haven't tried it out so I can't say anything about its quality

True. He would take up the whole film. That's just how good he is ;-)

Where's the fairness in that?

Patrick Stewart makes the difference. If Star Wars had Patrick Stewart instead of Star Trek, Star Wars would have won Also: most annoying characters. Jar-Jar-Binx vs Wesley Crusher

Quantum Field Theory: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsPUh22kYmNBpDZPejCHGzxyfgitj26w9

You might have heard of the mass-energy equivalent from SR? E = mc^2? Ring a bell? And that's exactly what it means No, it's not We've got a pretty good idea. Most of the mass in our atoms is due to energy bound between quarks by gluons, not by the Higgs mechanism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson: Gravitons, if they exist, don't give anything mass; they would only govern the attraction between masses, or accumulations of energy. Also, we may not know what Dark Matter is, but we do have some pretty good observations of its behavior that track with what we know about mass You seem to be confusing general (physical) attraction with gravity. Gravity is the attraction of masses to other masses. There are other attractions, like the electromagnetic attraction between reverse charges. Or quark-quark attraction via gluon. We need more partjcles to explain matter, but that's just the process of refining theory. No serious scientist fooled themselves into believing the Standard Model was the end of discovery in physics. A mental force? What's that supposed to be? Are we going to talk about free will(y) now? When you lift your arm, your motor complex sends out a complex and coordinated series of electrical pulses through your neurons to your shoulder, which then excite your muscles and cause them to contract in a manner that raises your arm. This has absolutely nothing to do with quantum physics. In terms of even more fundamental physics. We'll always poorly understand the more fubdamental physics of the most fundamental physics that we understand We already know that the CMB has a blueshifted band in the direction that the earth is travelling and an redshifted band in the opposite direction. That doesn't indicate anything about the 'center' of the universe. The earth is not an inertial system, it is constantly being accelerated toward the sun. Because of Orbital Mechanics, we have a stable orbit and are not falling INTO the sun. Btw just shooting nuclear waste would be a lot more complicated than just shooting it at the sun. You actually have to shoot it retrograde (and it's even more complicated than that) or else it will just take a stable orbit and possibly even collide with earth in the near future. Even if we got into this debate here and now, it would not settle anything about whether there was anything alive to cause the big bang or whatever else you want to say. THEN WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY???????? Energy doesn't cause attraction. Where did I say that energy causes attraction You literally included the part where you claim that energy causes attraction in your own quote No, because the black hole loses mass. We can talk about the scientific understandable part of the Universe, sure, but that’s like talking about a human emotion such as for instance ‘jealousy’, by referring only to the neurotransmitters, blood flow, the limbic system and others that are involved in generating this emotion. But it’s caused by some external event. By describing these biological effects of that event, you’re making the correct observations, and you're not making any mistake, but you’re still missing the point, since you’re only focussing on half of what’s actually going on This IS the kind of furom where we talk about what is known about nature and the universe and argue over new ideas with our knowledge of nature. Deal with it.

Maybe it's different, but it's still no justification to my mind. Now, I don't sell cakes. I sell my skills and my time. I don't deny services based on your person, but I deny orders that I consider unethical. I can't imgine a cake bing used for something unethical.

And then I offered another example: So far pseudo objects as I referred to them seem to cover projections only. Maybe that's all they are. I was wondering if there were other phenomena that at first glance violated the laws of physics - which holes clearly do not - and appeared to be objects. If nobody can think of any, that's ok and I'll take projections

I should have been specific that I meant the rules of basic finance. And you are right that you can learn a lot from games. Edutainment has been an emerging branch of game design for the better part of the past decade

True that. One of my signatures was "don't tolerate intolerance" in a long deprecated message board, but it clearly shows the limits of even the most tolerant people I gave up when I realized that the scroll bar on the post was only a single pixle on my cell phone screen...

Now this comes from personal experience so CAVEAT but I figured the rules out by myself by like the age of 10, but I didn't start following them until I was in my 30's, mostly because I didn't learn to value money as a kid. Money just came out of the faucet so to say until I finished college at 27 and then I suddenly had to work for my money. Figuring out the principles was easy; training myself in discipline to be able to follow these principles was the hard part

Imagineable. That is if it's the kind of religious society that generally tolerates physicists as just having their own strange perspective

A collection of your contributions on this thread so far. I could let the evidence speak for itself, but I'll say it anyway: you are deliberately obtuse, imprecise and repetitive, sometimes evasive. You don't ever present anything that resembles evidence, only assertions based in a logic that you refuse to lay out. It is beyond frustrating trying to commubicate with you! I could convince a steel concrete wall to fall over before you budge to reason

Adding several expletives as well