Sayonara

There's a seller on eBay called Severicheap who is auctioning a universe. Hey!

The STFU comment has received a warning, in case anyone was wondering. As aggravating as some members' posting styles may be, we're all capable of remaining civil.

For any given forum subject on this site, diversions from the current model should be posted in the speculations forum unless significantly evidenced.

What people are challenging is that, given that a photon can have a spectrum of energy values, that a photon should be called "the minimum unit of energy". Do you not see the contradiction?

Just to save lots of time, let me assure you that you won't evade his question by asking one back.

Seeing as he's talking about the findings from the past 20 or so years, which pretty much make up the current model, what precisely is your objection?

You are absolutely within your rights to disagree Lance, and I can understand your reasoning. But there is at least one alternative view which has been discussed in depth on this site and of which - with 7 posts - Mr Want2know is likely unaware. Why not give him a link to the thread and let him decide for himself, instead of stating your opinion as a flat fact? THAT is misinforming. Mr Want2know - the prior discussion is here. Also Lance, I'd like to point out that you have changed your argument since that thread to make it more restrictive. In the other thread you state: And the really good one, after stating five ways to justify the conclusion you had already decided on: You "conceded" that a small number of such species might exist despite the pummelling that each of your arguments received from some of this forum's most accomplished members (which you mostly ignored, even after being repeatedly called on it), and despite the contradictions in your own theory (such as expansionist species being more likely to employ space cities and mining space debris, effectively removing the need for planetary colonisation). Yet in this thread you summarily decide that the number of candidate species should not be small, but instead it should be zero. Just... WOW.

Although you don't "agree" with the other arguments, you could at least acknowledge their existence by saying something like "if this had happened some time in the past 100 million years, the aliens would probably already be here." Allow for the possibility that it might not be true. You know, instead of a post which projects an air of dismissive arrogance by making an absolutist statement which is actually founded on nothing but your own certainty. I am quite sure that "dismissively arrogant" is not how you generally intend for your posts to come across. Also, I recall that a great deal of that thread dealt with aliens from such a civilisation having visited Earth and leaving no traces which are currently detectable. Despite reams of posts from various members explaining how this is entirely possible, you simply ignored all of that and continue to post as if it is not the case. That is why certain people have a problem with your posts on the odd occasion Lance; you misinform.

Slightly OT, but related: Pringles tubes can also be adapted into lens extenders for macro photography. http://photocritic.org/macro-photography-on-a-budget/

Aces! Looking forward to seeing some shots from this.

But the stops are worked out for lenses of a given focal length. Will it work for a pinhole camera?

I remember that version. The forum worked exactly as specced, but it sure was quiet.

One day there will be a release of vB which does as it's told.

If I recall correctly, and I do, we had quite a long discussion in which this was shown repeatedly to not necessarily be true.

That reminds me - some themes still show the "Interviews" link. I suggest nesting content in the header files, so that you only have to change one file to edit the header menu bar for all styles.

I note that one can name one's purchase. What did you call this universe?

I take it that you consider the transplantation of cities away from the coast to be such a panicky response? I think it would probably take too much effort and time to be properly categorised as a knee-jerk reaction, but I still tend to agree. There are much more useful efforts that can be made.

Yes, but pointing out that a prediction is unreliable to the nth degree is not sufficient justification for ignoring it. Although you are quite right in that that is not strictly relevant to this part of the discussion, that only holds true if the data you are querying comes from measurement and not modelling. Remember that past trends as well as future trends can be predicted.

Lance has stated in other threads that he distrusts the long term trends which are predicted by models. Therefore, it is ok to just disregard them.

You have to wonder what was going through the researcher's minds. - Hey Clive, this cloning thing is being done to death at the moment. - You're right Dennis. What else can we do? - I know... let's make them glow!

"Teaching your grandmother to suck eggs" is a phrase that means you are telling people how to do things they already know.

Only if you have a checkbox labelled "no properties?". Otherwise, no. I think the biggest clue is in the word itself. Nothing. "No thing".

What's your work/study background? It'd be helpful to know what sort of understanding of the scientific process you have, so that we don't miss bits out or teach you to suck eggs.

That "perpetual motion" you have in there is going to give a lot of people doubts before they even look at your theory. I would suggest that another problem you may encounter is that the orbit of the Earth is quite well understood, and your theory will have to be a superior explanation in order to gain any support. Although it's aminly about QM, this thread gives some advice on that aspect: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13994 I would not worry about publishing until you are sure that you have something which can and should be published. Luckily, this site is packed with people who can help you to establish that. Just to give you fair warning though, you should anticipate... let's call it "robust" criticism

Not sure to be honest. By f8 do you actually mean f/8?