swansont

The phrase “become transgender” is problematic. I’m not sure it’s something you “become” Is that how trans people describe it? Are you presenting a scenario where someone who is not trans pretends to be? i.e. they are trying to cheat? No, that’s not a true statement. Men, on average, are stronger. But that statement is assuming there are just the two gender categories. Anyway https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbt-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked/

But it’s not an example. It’s a boogie-man. It’s a monster under the bed. A made-up scenario to frighten people. A slippery-slope fallacy. You can’t have an honest discussion if you aren’t properly representing the situation.

I missed where Mike Tyson announced they are transgender. Do you have a link?

That’s a separate problem. Hydrogen is one possibility. Batteries are another.

Hydrogen is one possibility. Local generation is another.

True, but I didn't say anything about farming. Nor does it seem to address the points I brought up. (one being that you have to build the solar (or wind) farm. That's the key. Whether or not you use hydrogen is completely beside this point)

Or low frequency.

Or not, which is the issue. Hydrogen is a transfer medium, not a source, so it's a separate question. You could commit to hydrogen but burn coal to make it. This is similar to using copper wires to transmit electricity vs some other conductor. Neither one is inherently green or not green. The source needs to be green. Hydrogen efficiency or renewable efficiency?

Depends where the hydrogen came from.

You can test this yourself for visible light. Place the box between you and a bright light, so the bottom of the box blocks the light; top open. Can you see the light? If it was a piece of paper (i.e. thin) you could probably see a brighter area, as some light makes it through. For thicker paper (like construction paper) or cardboard, you won’t.

UV isn't shown there, probably because it does not penetrate paper unless it's very thin. x-rays and gammas are generally much higher energy than the UV we're typically exposed to.

Yes, that should protect from UV.

That's fine. But you haven't done any of that. You haven't provided any specific examples where you explain observations or predict new ones. You have no equations or simulations, or a physical model. We already have thermodynamics and a model for entropy. As we do for other phenomena you've brought up. You aren't bringing anything new to the discussion. We already have a concept of causality. Perhaps the better approach would be to learn what we already know, instead of striking out on your own. You're trying to discover a land that has already been mapped.

! Moderator Note 1. Advertising/discussing speculations outside of their own thread is against the rules. 2. You were asked what the contradiction is. This is a recurring theme: you act as though we can read your mind. Posting pictures and gifs with no explanation is woefully insufficient.

! Moderator Note Do you have a model? Can you make specific predictions, which would represent falsifiability? Something more than “stuff happens”

! Moderator Note Your ASD had no model and no evidence. This appears to be no different in that regard, and is a requirement for discussion.

! Moderator Note Simply repeating your assertions is not a valid substitute for the model and evidence that we require for discussion. As you have not provided the necessary level of rigor as required by the speculations rules, this is closed. Do not re-introduce this discussion.

! Moderator Note Multiple topics do not belong in a single thread. Speculations requires more than assertion. You need a model and a way to test it - some kind of evidence or a way to falsify the idea.

The GOP has outsourced it.

You need an input in one part of the cycle to let gravity do the work in the other part (same as the light I linked to); in hydro power that’s done by the sun.

And it gives 110% effort ! Moderator Note No, by the staff’s interpretation of our rules, it is an assessment of your argument, which is permitted. “you are a silly person” is an insult, but that’s not the comment. You need to distinguish between the two situations, and stop distracting from the discussion. Critique of your argument should be expected.

Yes. One effort is hydroelectricity. Gravitational PE of water is converted to rotational KE of a turbine, which makes electricity. also: https://deciwatt.global/gravitylight bypasses the need for water

No, there is no shortage. But in science we are constrained by what nature allows to work, and people untrained in science often ignore or are unaware of these constraints.

! Moderator “We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it.” - from rule 2.7

The details of verification depends on the claim. Sometimes you can re-create the experiment, or do a similar experiment with a different target. (e.g it worked with one atom or isotope, does it work with another?) Sometimes it relies on obtaining data independently (astronomy, for instance). Sometimes you can build on the discovery, and the new experiment will not work if the underlying science is wrong. (see the above GPS example)