swansont

! Moderator Note Then you have to support it and provide evidence for it. Making the assumption that it’s true, that your reason is correct, and forging ahead with discussion is not how this works.

! Moderator Note Yes they are. And you should be able to cite scientific findings to support any claims you make, rather than make blanket assertions of a possibly dubious nature. Don’t make assertions you can’t back up

It’s not a security risk, as such. It’s to keep spammers away, who would only be posting so that links to their site appeared and improve their search-engine ranking. Such posts would not tend to contribute to any discussion. It’s not our function to drive traffic to others’ sites. Annoying and obtrusive, as iNow says. As the rules say, if it’s not commercial, it’s OK to put in your signature.

! Moderator Note I assumed you were referring to such, and did not mean architectural. Try again. Be specific, and scientific.

! Moderator Note If you can’t respond without being sexist*, it’s better not to respond * or bigoted, in general

! Moderator Note You gave not established the premise of your question is true. You have provided an anecdote. ! Moderator Note And what are these “natural properties”? Can you answer without treading away from a scientific analysis? This comment applies to all participants in the thread

No, not as such. We’re still a science site, so pseudoscience is rejected, and we expect some scientific rigor in discussions.

Two posts in and no actual science yet. Hey, look! Equations of motion are supposed to be part of this. Could you post them? What results are different? Does this system make predictions that are not already part of mainstream physics? Let’s have them!

Not in this case, because the topic is “how things are done ‘roun these parts” and you’re basically telling us that the way things are done is wrong, despite not being familiar with “these parts” A problem here is that when two things are different, it doesn’t mean that every feature is different. Pointing out the features that are the same isn’t illuminating.

Incompatible? Great scientific controversy? No, not so much.

In a Newtonian world, it’s a force. But, as with basically all physics, when you dive deeper you find that the simple models aren’t quite true.

! Moderator Note SK was warned not to open a new thread based on his conjecture, and as he will not be around to tapdance anymore, this is closed

SteveKlinko banned for ignoring repeated warnings about not opening new threads based on his pet theory.

Peer review is also a science term. As accounting is also not science, one must allow for the possibility they don’t share a definition It’s often personal.. Anecdotal means it lacks rigor and is more prone to bias. It’s not collected systematically

Law is not science, science is not law. The item was “Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack.” Nobody said anything about sarcasm. No, that’s not true. You should investigate what “anecdotal” means with regard to evidence, and what “peer review” entails.

We can measure the strength of these interactions, and people have done so. As Eise points out, you discuss movement, not forces, and nothing about quantifying the strength, which is necessary to answer your question.

! Moderator Note We’re a science site, so this is done.

So one internet-related idea, and not stolen because someone posted the idea on a science forum. You could have just admitted you had nothing. It wouldn’t be as damaging to your credibility.

Nice non-sequitur

That’s simply untrue. Objective facts exist. If someone stole an idea on the internet, it was not a personal experience; it happened on the internet. You should be able to provide evidence. The problem is most likely you can’t. That’s the simplest explanation for your responses (or lack thereof)

The kind of answer one expects after a BS claim has been made. The honest choices would be either evidence or a retraction. Excuses? No, not so much.

Can you take a stab at what chemical reaction you think might be going on?

You have yet to present evidence of anyone getting robbed online. You can’t claim it happens without evidence.

! Moderator Note We prefer it if you post the ideas (it’s more accessible and easier to quote portions to give feedback), and at least an abstract (a summary that highlights the idea and important results).

My takes is that a certain group didn’t like her, and they sorted through the negative descriptions to come up with a justification why. This happens a lot, when one side decries the other for something, but are mum when their side engages in the same behavior. But 40% (or more) weren’t going to vote for her regardless, because they would never vote for a democrat, and all of this is moot in regard to those voters. Nothing was going to sway them.