Drakes

What part of my position do you politely want clarified?

Still my muddy position consist of Apple, Google, Netflix, Raytheon and about 800 other stocks.

I did state my position clearly, your total inability to comprehend is not my problem. Might be due to the alcohol I love shrinking shrinks

Duh, do you want cars banned because idiots get drunk and crash? If there were no cars there would be no drunk drivers Are you an alcoholic or just a fed doing a stress test on yourself

Or offering help to someone trying to skirt toxic waste laws

Nope as alcohol is consumed by choice. Very poor analogy Nope society is not to blame because 99 percent of alcohol users do not become addicted. See all you are focusing on are the problems and not the larger picture, if there was no alcohol idiots would still sniff glue

While drunkenness is a temporary condition alcoholism arises from a more permanent set of conditions that cause the disease. This is determined not by the alcoholic but by the vast majority of alcohol users who have no problems with consumption

If you do not know what the waste is then someone who knows should be called. Unknown waste should not be handled as it can not be handled properly

I already have Google and am hoping that their quantum division bets broken up into baby Googs like happened to ATT and the baby bells. So anyone have ideas about startup quantum players?

I hope that you are aware that many if not all chemicals change during processing and that harmless chemicals can become very dangerous even when properly handled. So the real answer here is that you should not be handling anything that you are clueless about Should you?

Do all poor people steal? Answer NO Case closed If you can't do the time, do not do the crime

I'll take a crack. Your approach is wrong, because if the t cells do not attack certain organs this is an observation that like many medical topics is no where being close to understood. You are asking why a cell does something, do you expect the cells to answer questions

Nah I bought Apple and Google, because real science pays

It is delusional at the least to say that humanity must from the Earth understand the Universe. One thing that I can tell you for a fact, is that 85 percent of the Universe is NOT missing, 100 percent of the Universe is right where it belongs, the fact that minuscule and irrelevant humans do not Understand this fact attributes to legal sales of alcohol, cigarettes and dimwitts babbling that climate change began 150 years ago when 20000 years ago half the Earth was glaciated But but but scientist say Define scientist

Assuming that people know what a galaxy should be composed of or how they should move in the first place. No one has this info, so they work out a math equation and then say the Universe is 85 percent missing. It's also a delusional assumption to say with impunity that gravity is the same everywhere as it is on Earth as 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of the universe is unexplored, and no looking at billions of year old light does not count for exploration

Wrong dark matter is absolutely nothing except a value that makes an equation correct. Try making up values on a final exam and see if you pass because you can not complete the math and just pop in the number that makes the equation correct. I triple dog dare ya, see if you make the Deans list https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/einstein-made-his-share-errors-here-are-three-biggest-ncna855731 3. Einstein and the expanding universe Einstein was uncomfortable with some of relativity’s implications, including one of the biggest — that the universe isn’t a static thing but an entity that must expand or contract. This was unthinkable to Einstein, who believed the universe existed in a “steady state.” So Einstein added a fudge factor to his equations, a kind of energy associated with empty space. This cosmological constant allowed for a stable universe. But sure enough, astronomers in the 1920s confirmed that the universe was expanding. Einstein later called the cosmological constant the “greatest blunder” of his career. Einstein's resistance to the idea of an expanding universe makes sense in light of his classical education, says Marcia Bartusiak, a science journalism professor at MIT and the author of several books on the history of physics. His schooling took place in the 1880s and 1890s, when the prevailing wisdom — based on physics going back to the work of Isaac Newton — was that the universe was static. An expanding cosmos simply "didn't fit with his view of how the universe acted," she says. But when astronomers showed Einstein the data, he came around. “He listened to the evidence, from [astronomer Edwin] Hubble,” Bartusiak says. "He Einstein admitted his error.”

The math requires 85 more energy and mass then exist. Much like getting a 100 megaton nuclear explosion from a firecracker, it doesn't happen, no matter how many times you try or how many thought experiments you do. So the math is wrong or the Universe is wrong and the Universe is not subject to fallible human interpretation or blunders.

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2013/11/getting-einstein-to-say-i-was-wrong.html#:~:text=Hubble showed Einstein photographic plates,a phenomena phenomenon called redshift.&text=However%2C Nussbaumer argues%2C Einstein was,Hubble as common lore holds. However, Nussbaumer argues, Einstein was not as impressed with Hubble as common lore holds. Einstein, from his interactions with other physicists, already superficially knew most of what Hubble was saying about the redshift of distant galaxies, and his meeting with the astronomer added nothing really new. Plus, the idea of redshift was so new, no one was sure that's what they were seeing. On February 4, Einstein gave a seminar about astronomy where he mentioned the work of the astronomers at the Wilson Observatory. He commended their work, but was conservative about how their observations might affect his equations, speculating that likely the universe was still static, but he might have to refigure his equations slightly. Except Einstein wasn't so impressed. His diary from that time period hardly mentions Hubble at all. A week later when he was at another seminar, this one specifically on redshifted galaxies he offered a much more nuanced and qualified view. He said it could be an expanding universe, or from a universe that expanded and contracted, or perhaps even that distant light got "tired" and redder the farther it traveled. His beliefs were starting to change, but it was hardly the instant conversion often talked about. When asked how he could explain the redshifts, he said "I don't know the answer." History 101

You can live your entire life imagining and never get anywhere, in fact lots of people do this quite well. Imagine what Einstein could really have achieved if he ever put his pencil down got out of his chair and did a real experiment like Von Braun instead of just imagining. At one time the Earth was flat because one could clearly see the edge where the ocean fell off, it took men with logs and sails to eventually never reach the edge and the spherical Earth was discovered. You can only go so far with a pencil then you have get up and test ones findings. Einstein is not and never was a God, his math told him that the Universe was not expanding, perhaps that math was right and Hubble's is wrong. We all want to know, however none of us does, in fact we know exactly the same as to what we are as the first Neanderthal did. Sad but true. The speeds I mentioned were not imagined they were calculated. What is the imaginary power source for your imaginary space suit to keep you from freezing solid? WE also do not typically when thinking logically of piston movement lay train tracks into space. Screw the fucking thought experiment unless the thought is how to actually get there. If you wanna keep rehashing cats in a box go ahead, my thoughts go in one direction forward

There is also no way to be still which is what I said originally.

In one plane alone we are currently moving 1.3 million miles per hour that is the linear galactic movement plane, the Milky Way is headed toward LEO, so if an Apollo type spacecraft is launched toward Leo it's true speed is 1,325,000 miles per hour if launched directly away from LEO it's true speed drops to 1,275,000 miles per hour but the distance traveled is in the opposite direction of the observed movement since the entire galaxy is moving in the opposite direction at 1,300,000 miles per hour at launch. So what is observed is just not what it seems to be, if the spacecraft were to attain a speed of 1,300,000 miles per hour away from LEO it would become still in one plane and the galaxy would appear to move around the spacecraft. So still in any way is just not possible. The above also ignores the 490,000 miles per hour orbital speed that we are simultaneously spinning around the galactic core. I also know that in the early 1900's that a train was a lot more amazing than it is today, but someone imagining train tracks into space might actually have been exhibiting a grandiose lack of imagination.

Again Einsteins observer can not remain motionless unless all motion to the observer is eliminated. I wonder if Einstein based this experiment in the period of time before Hubble demonstrated that the Universe was not static as Einstein once believed? And as Drake predicted there are 3............................... the other 2 out of 7.4 billion on cue as predicted. Another will soon be rustled out of bed As in politics the effort to cover up the truth creates more noise than the truth itself

Einsteins so called thought experiment is called a thought experiment because it can not be conducted as a real experiment. Now if you are in the ocean and the current is exerting a 10 knot force on the vessel and enough power is applied to match the 10 knot current and facing into the current then the force is balanced and the vessel remains motionless, or so it seems until you factor in the Earths spin, the Suns galactic rotation and then galactic linear travel. The error magnifies with each growing step. knowing the Earths spin, and rotation around the sun can be calculated because error checking to the previous time frame can be compared and errors worked out. When considering the Suns orbit around the galactic core the projected error is plus or minus 25 million years in a 225 to 250 million year rotation that can not be error checked to the previous orbit because humanity has never seen an entire orbit and may never and there is still at least one more movement thru spacetime not accounted for. Those who tried to work out the math have all concluded that the universe as observed is wrong as 85 percent is missing. Dark matter is at current not real, it is a variable that makes an equation correct, so without the right data to apply no calculations to remain still for Einsteins thought experiment are viable as there are just too many unknowns and as such we are actually lost on island Earth. However this will not stop the geniuses at the page with three entire users from controlling the flow of spacetime with their own distorted reality.

The orbital speed of the Milky way is estimated at one orbit in every 225 to 250 million years. We are in this orbit and the speed can not be guessed any better than that. Then there is the linear speed of the Milky way which can only be guessed with even less precision, however the actual speed is so out of frame to a human observer that any supposedly accurate speed can be popped in and called a scientific theory, it's not a theory it's a guess though I suppose the terms can be interchanged. Then there is the stability of the Universe itself which might be stable or it might be orbiting, moving linear or vibrating. My point is that from our frame and solo point of view there is no way to be still or know what speeds that would all need to be counteracted to achieve motionless. Claiming that errors do not matter, is completely silly, but is easy on the internet when your O2 supply is not limited I suppose.

And what is the speed and direction of this galaxy and how is this measured with precision from a humans frame on Earth so that you can pop that speed into an equation and be certain that the speed is correct because without a correct speed the equation is meaningless. Would an error of 1 mile per hour effect the distance traveled over say a billion years? Yes it would.