John Cuthber

The ideal answer to "What parts of scientific articles should be skipped and when?" is none and never. The real world answer is it depends. What are you trying to learn from the paper? Are you just trying to copy some part of a procedure they used to see if it works for some other process? If so you can probably just read that part of the experimental details. Also, logically, you don't need to read any bits that you already know. How do you tell which ones those are? Well, unfortunately, you have to read them to check. The least bad answer I can give is that you need to learn to skim read papers. Of course, if someone has asked you too review the paper, you need to read the lot- probably twice or more.

No, you haven't supported anything which you have said. One dodgy paper in a very questionable journal isn't really support. Do you think this sort of comment will hep you in any way? "anyone worth debating the energy budget with..."

Anything apart from demonstrate His own existence or so it seems. Do you understand that making statements like that, without any evidence, on a science website makes you look a bit silly? It's also very close to the logical fallacy called "begging the question". Please explain why you do it.

"This is my first thread here. I don't know what has been said before" Then read it. " but I assume you then agree that past numbers for soot were highly underestimated. " No, why would you assume I agree with something when I have just asked you to explain why you believe it? "It does bother me that you tie in spelling with knowledge. Isn't that being a bit elitist? " No, not really, there is, in general, a correlation between knowing some things and knowing other things. ​It may be many things, but it's certainly not "elitist" Any twit with a spell checker can get the spelling right. "New studies are showing CO2 cannot be a great as previously claimed." Nope, new studies show CO2 rising "I take it that you want pal reviewed material over explanations of how and why" Either would do, but please don't make up facts- those have to be from a reputable source. "Does that mean you don't understand the sciences involved? " No, plenty of us have a very solid grasp of it. You would realise that if you had bothered to read the other 17 pages of this thread. " It is a waste of time for me to look up decades old material to school someone." That's not the reason we are asking you to do it. "I take into account real science, instead of believing what someone else tells me to believe." On what basis do you decide what is "real"? Are you aware of the issues of confirmation bias? " In real science, you try to prove a concept by doing everything in your power to see if it can be disproved. " And... It's not as if you have offered any actual evidence against the idea. "Didn't Einstein say something like it only takes one proof or error to disprove a theory?" True, and the current tally for proofs of error is zero. Unless, of course, you can show otherwise but, rather than doing so you preach that you are certain and will not even look at the thread- never mind deigning to actually provide any evidence. You have, thus far, provided precisely one "citation" to support your assertion and it seems from a vanity publisher (their website includes the following text) "SOP journals are made freely available online,.. In order to cover the costs of providing and maintaining a publication infrastructure, ..., the journal charges a publication fee .... The publication fee is required to be paid upon acceptance of an article for publication. "

Well, perhaps you would like to present the evidence behind this "I am certain that soot on ice is the largest antropogenic warming we have." I chose that one because the other assertions have been pretty much done to death in this thread already. Also, you might want to use a spelling checking system of some sort. ​Few things look more amateur than spelling it (and anthropogenic) wrongly.

"I would argue you can't prove energy came before life" Really? OK the only life we know about is here on Earth. We know roughly how old that life is. We also know how the Earth's elements came into being- for example, anything further along the periodic table than iron was made in a supernova. We also know that the very early universe was very hot- it had plenty of energy, but any life would have been destroyed. "Given the laws of physics is it acceptable to say that the creation of life is the creation of energy?" no. The process we call life is driven by energy so the energy has to be there first. Just out of curiosity, do you plan to accept that you are wrong, or are you going to ignore any and all evidence so you can go on believing your idea?

No, let's not. Thought is an intrinsic human trait. On the other hand, organised religion persecutes those who think anything outside their dogma. So, while it may be true that some religions are in favour of thought, it's not a characteristic of religion in general.

Disprove "The universe creates energy by creating life." OK Energy was here first.and thus it can not have been created by life. QED.

TL;DR Can you provide a summary?

Just plain wrong. It may be in some cases- like bacteria But it isn't in all cases- like any multi cellular organism- for example- us. So, just as soon as you show the earth's offspring growing up into copies of the earth (Incidentally that producing the earth again which is why it's called re-producing) you will have shown that the earth can reproduce. Until then there's no way it can be sensibly considered to be alive.

Go and see a doctor.

Simple yes or no question: Is this video evidence of space ship racing? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_krCKECpzrU

I think that triangular state only exists at very high energies which would destroy life instantly.

If the link says that then the link is wrong. You seem to not realise there's a difference between cell reproduction within an organism and reproduction of the organism as a whole. You also seem not to realise that having a liver cell that suddenly starts reproducing isn't usually a good idea- they call it cancer.

"Why does offspring have to "resemble" the parent," They don't Plenty of animals and plants have young that don't seem much like their parents. But the important thing is that they grow up to be like their parents. And that's why life can't be the offspring of the earth. We won't grow up to become planets. "We are like the seeds of earth who will one day travel to the stars and and carry earths/our/lifes dna to other worlds that we will terra form, " And we still won't grow up to be planets. And nor will anything else. That's because planets are not alive. Why are you even trying to pretend that they are?

I suspect that the reason why people use drop tubes is their simplicity. An empty tube is a very easy concept to grasp and a fairly easy one to engineer. Your increasingly complex design reminds me of this cartoon http://pages.uoregon.edu/ftepfer/SchlFacilities/TireSwingTable.html

Has anyone checked that the original assertion of this thread is true, i.e. that there are more physics cranks than other sorts? I ask because the notional biology question "Earth is a living organism" is currently up to 6 pages which ought to be a record given that the clear answer is two letters long. My unevinced hunch is that the theology cranks are the commonest and engage in "equal opportunity" crankery because they can be spectacularly wrong in a large number of fields- notably astronomy and biology but also almost any bit of science.

If there was no friction between the back wheel and the ground the bike wouldn't move. However for the front wheel the friction force is the only thing making it turn so the force must act the other way.

And again Why would science want to join religion? (And I remind you that the forum's rules require that you answer that)

You seem to be trying to ignore the fact that living things have offspring and the earth doesn't so it's not alive. Why is that?

One wheel pushes the bike. The bike pushes the other wheel.

So, it's not reproduction. So the earth is not alive. To be alive the earth has to make little earths that grow up to be adults. It doesn't.

The important thing about a baby is that it grows up to be an adult. Just as soon as you can show one of those baby earths growing up into a big earth and having babies of its own, you will have shown that you are right. Until then, everyone will know that you are wrong.

Let us know when you can actually answer the question. Why would science want to join religion? Just asserting that they " have their data but it's experiential not experimental and worse, can't be" doesn't help- because it's simply lying about the meaning of evidence. It "can't be"- because it's not really evidence (BTW peace on Earth has nothing to do with the issue- why did you raise it? )