swansont

True. The people who show up to argue the contrary-to-science viewpoint typically aren't here to learn, but rather to instigate and pontificate, and it invariably ends up that they don't have much of an understanding of what they are critiquing (both the details of the science and often, generally how science is done). It's not just climate change where this occurs. IOW, can't be addressed as an information gap problem, because they don't think they have an information gap. (See also: Dunning-Kruger syndrome)

justqwer has been banned for trolling us with ID nonsense.

Why is the title and author of this book a secret?

! Moderator Note This would be an example of what I explained to you in our PM exchange: the inevitable evidence that you don't understand evolution. This is a massive straw man (if it were real, you should have no trouble finding legitimate examples of people making this argument) and relying on logical fallacies is not evidence. ! Moderator Note And this just indicates you are trolling, and your primary intent at this point is to stir things up.

That's a pretty spectacular failure of logic. I defy you to find any science where this isn't the case: "informed guesswork" (i.e. predictions coming from mathematical models) and the science still happening and we continue to learn, because it's not "done".

! Moderator Note Well, that's a straw man. Also, this thread was a hijack, which you were told not to do both in a thread and in a PM. Ignoring the rules isn't going to get you what you want. (and please be aware that responding to this note in the thread would be off-topic, and thus also a rules violation)

! Moderator Note The OP is not asking anyone to defend evolution, or even asserting ID. "could intelligent design be legitimate if it actually did some science" is asking a question about whether, in principle, a certain approach could be legitimate science. I don't see how that's contrary to normal practice. Hijack on irreducible complexity has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120588-irreducible-complexity-split-from-could-intelligent-design-be-legitimate/

F = qv x B There will be a force perpendicular the velocity and the magnetic field, which gives rise to a centripetal acceleration as long as v and B are not collinear. i.e. a charge moving in a uniform field will move in a spiral (or a circle if v and B are perpendicular)

I thought you were referring to GOP congresscrittters. Well, no. They are predisposed to do so, but they could theoretically choose not to. Which is in violation of laws and regulations. As is classifying material motivated by covering up such violations. No one has brought it up? You aren't paying attention. It's yet another hypocrisy that shows once again that the GOP's actual motivations have nothing to do with their claimed motivations. We haven't gotten there yet. That would be the impeachment trial, held in the senate. What does this have to do with anything under discussion? It's self-evident that no laws have been broken? Seriously? No campaign finance laws were broken? Trump's organization didn't misuse money intended for veterans? But that moot, since impeachment is not necessarily about lawbreaking. They can claim that about due process, but it doesn't make it true. The claims I have seen about due process are based on misinformation (possibly deliberate) about the process. What due process has not been afforded anyone? This is impeachment. The due process is found in the Constitution.

No, they do not. You can focus on Trump's motivations without addressing Biden at all. You have the conversations, the inappropriateness of the people involved (Giuliani) and the information that Biden had already been checked out.

A quantification of why the equation is legit would include any experiment that confirms isotopic masses and decay Q-values. There are hundreds of examples.

I see two of them. One of which was a history if the CIA's involvement in studying reports. The other was the Coyne link, and I wasn't sure how that was relevant to anything being discussed. How much does it cost to provide the citation for it? How did you learn of it if you don't have the book?

People have done calculations of e.g. the self-energy of charged particles, i.e. assuming you are assembling the particle out of some nebulous stuff that has an average charge density, but these are incorrect. You get, for example, the classical electron radius from equating the self-energy to the mass energy, but experiment shows that the electron doesn't have such a radius and is in fact consistent with being a point particle. I'm not sure what other energy types you might be talking about, where E=mc^2 isn't already being applied.

! Moderator Note Sorry, JEB, but simply posting a link to a video is in violation of rule 2.7. Thread hijacking violates rule 2.5 and 2.10 (You need to read the rules) https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/ If you think there's something to this objection, you will have to post your discussion points here (at the site, and in this thread only if they are relevant to the current conversation)

! Moderator Note But not here in this thread, unless the post relevant to the OP

! Moderator Note Bald assertion falls well short of a convincing argument, and also of the level of rigor required here.

Such predictions as the one in the quote were dismissed as alarmist. Blaming the scientists is misguided, at best. Political inaction happened despite the predictions, not because of them. The article also points to the problem of using "wrong" as attached to scientific results or predictions, as if this is a binary condition. Most of the time it isn't. Science tends to quantify things, so that one can see how close results are to predictions.

Of course his dad’s position had something to do with it. I asked how it was suspicious. Putting people with a “name” on corporate boards happens all the time.

Sorry, what? Please explain what was suspicious, before proceeding as if this was a given.

The image on the upper left - not sure how it represents an entangled photon. It looks like a higher-order gaussian mode of a beam of light. See the 2 2 mode here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_beam#/media/File:Hermite-gaussian.png How is it fractal? These images can be represented mathematically, and you seem to have found that representation, or something similar.

! Moderator Note Also, the link has been removed. Discussion should take place here, and not require anyone to go elsewhere.

My favorite is that when one drinks, one is drinking some atoms that were in T. Rex pee.

Newton’s first law is the law of inertia

Light travels through a vacuum. We are a vacuum? And how would we drag these singularities around if they are non-reactive? ! Moderator Note This hand-waving isn't going to get you where you need to be. We need a model. We need to have at least one foot in the science realm, and you've squandered your opportunities to do that. Closed. Don't bring this up again

To reduce implies a change from one value to another. But that's not what's happening. Mass doesn't change the acceleration. It tells you what the acceleration will be. F = ma. Nothing has changed. Nothing has been reduced. Changing the mass changes the acceleration. Again, this is an issue of semantics that (largely) goes away when you look at the equation.