swansont

Equating up quarks with matter is incorrect. All quarks are considered matter

One effect is the available surface area, in proportion to the number of atoms

That’s not a link to a credible source.

Synchronized means both the frequency and the phase (time) are the same for the clocks. But identical clocks in different frames run at different frequencies. They can’t be synchronized.

“You should write a song about X. Now all you have to do is the lyrics and the music. The easy part.” We clarify what we mean by speculations. The dictionary is not a technical resource.

You dismissed inferiority complex as one possible basis for racism without any evidence. I asked why you can eliminate it. Has there been research done that rules it out? (You know: science site. Evidence. Scholarly studies.)

Divulging information that might be the basis of such bias is voluntary. Posters here do so with some degree of anonymity, which mitigates this to some extent. There’s more risk from personal vendettas, and as Phi indicated, the staff monitor this. People abusing the system have their powers restricted. No, I’m afraid that in virtually all cases, it’s a matter of feedback on the quality of your posts. To paraphrase Martin Blank, if negative points show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring them there.

That’s not an accurate summary of evolution. Patently untrue. I would be shocked to find that this had not been studied and scientific explanations formulated. Argument from ignorance gets old very fast. Why not?

! Moderator Note We aren’t debating the existence of a supreme being in this thread

! Moderator Note Nevertheless, they do. The question before us is why they do.

Banning happens if you break the rules. It’s not a function of your reputation, though a large negative rep might have a correlation.

How about “X is a vague and uninformed proposition, with little information that could serve as a basis for feedback”

You have admitted to not being a scientist. But by all means, lecture me about the process of doing science, as if I haven’t been doing this for 30 years

! Moderator Note The sandbox is for testing, e.g. trying out LaTex formatting. Not discussion

! Moderator Note It’s not news, as such. Pictures or videos are ok as support for discussion, but don’t work so well as the topic itself

Merely? You say that as if working out the math, etc. isn’t 98% of the work.

The problem here is that you aren’t doing the hard part, even if you think you are. In fact, you are creating extra work, because people have to explain to you why your ideas aren’t possible. “Thinking outside the box” is often touted as a virtue, especially by your ilk, but when you have no clue what the box is and why it’s there, it isn’t. It’s an excuse not to put the effort in to learn science

What have you done so far to solve this?

“Now” isn’t really used, as physics tends to quantify things, but since clocks in different frames can’t be synchronized, the answer is no. There is no common now. Relativity completely discards that concept.

In a Galilean transformation...

No. Einstein defined a clock synchronization technique, so that everyone in a frame can agree that an event that happened at some value of t happened at that time. It is the same time everywhere in a given frame. So whatever time it happens for someone co-located and at rest with respect to the event, that's the time for everyone in that frame You don't get to redefine this. And misapplying it will lead to errors. So if an observer at the origin learns of the event at t = x/c (from light travel) they know the event happened at t=0

Then there should be no issue in you providing the numbers, and a link to the information A cap is not the same as the production amount. Also, cap and trade is not the same as a tax.

! Moderator Note That's not why it was moved. ! Moderator Note That's why it was moved ! Moderator Note You can use accepted science to address speculations. But you have to actually include some science. As I said, it's not a place for WAGs.

"Antimatter cannot be controlled." is not a question "Which means to some extent it exists outside the boundaries of natural forces." is not a question.

! Moderator Note It's not speculation? Then please back up your claims with mainstream science. It doesn't matter if you're here in speculations or in the mainstream science sections — backing up claims is expected of you.