Incendia

...Well the only way we can know is to try... Your point of view: Waste of resources...No evidence suggesting that we should even try. My point of view: If they are fundamental we will definitely know. If they aren't we could have waited years...even decades or centuries before finding evidence to suggest they are not fundamental. If we try it now we will know several years earlier. Quarks have a very short life so we are unlikely to see any evidence unless we are looking for it or actually trying to split the quark. Who knows...could be interesting...

I have another suggestion...Can you make the forum not automatically mark all your notifications as read when you click on only one of them? It has become a annoyance.

...Atoms were once fundamental particles...Protons where once fundamental particles...

Don't be mean...By your logic the graviton can't exist because it would take a detector the size of Jupiter longer than 13.7 billion years to find 1.

Coin tossing isn't random...

No I mean split the quark...you know...like how you split an atom except probably not the same method would be used but it might I don't it could be possible maybe...

They should name the next three elements: Newtonium - After Isaac Newton Darwinium - After Charles Darwin Telsarium - After Nikola Tesla The random names given to the newest elements is just laziness. Has science lost it's grandeur?

So you have basically predicted the elements up to 218? That's interesting... Can you put in into periodic table form? That would help...I think...

... E=MC2 is Eisteins equations. He simplified all those long equations made by his predecessors into one short easy to understand one.

I updated the opening post. Lemur: What was your argument against 7.? It made no sense. Please revise your post.

...I still don't understand what you are saying...but it does look interesting.

Well that's because of point 6 not happening. We will always be in debt. Are you sure...Last time I checked your total percent = about 15%...where's the rest of the money? Things have value? I thought that the 'value' of an object was just how much money the owner thinks you should give him before he lets you have it so that he can buy stuff too. [Money is very similar to energy in the fact that it cannot be destroyed or created. (In our current monetary system.) All our money was created before our current economic system. Now if we try to make more our money is worth less so we don't have any net gain. This means prices of things go up but people don't get paid more. In other words our system kills itself whenever we print money. The apparent loss of money is actually it going abroad to another country via trading.]

...Lemur has hijacked the topic...

I wouldn't say vastly. Just 2.4% or something like that each year. And they have a bank account for money that should be spent on the country and not people? Military protection for physical money...you know hat just forget about the military bit for now. ...I didn't say there was no competition against the government stores...I just said they should exist. And tax doesn't generate as much money as owning all the profit made would. They would be subject to the same laws other store would. The only bonuses would be that the are exempt from VAT which would be useless in a store where the profit goes to the government. I mean destroy all value of money. That way you can't have a value of money that goes up and down. The economy can then actually grow. Have units of money instead. 1 monies = 1 pence 100 monies = 1 pound 1000 monies = 1 Dollar 10000 monies = 1 Yen 100000 monies = 1 Zen Etc. I know nothing about politics...are my all points/suggestions valid?

Okay... Ideas maybe: 1. People with an IQ below 110 shouldn't be allowed to be in politics...I know there are smart people with IQs lower than that but IQ does seem to correlate with intelligence...we don't want idiots in power do we? Power to the people...Are you insane? Last time I checked most of the people don't know anything about politics apart from the obvious. New 1. Stop war. Every country should get rid of it's army. They crazy amounts of money on it. [No point discussing this. It will never happen.] 2. Government should have several 'bank accounts' to store money in for later. They tell us to save up money for when we need it...they should take their own advice. Of-coarse these would be special bank accounts separate to mainstream ones...protected by military and such. 3. Government owned supermarkets. Profits go to government in order to pay for stuff like lowering taxes. Government becomes an ISP. Government basically becomes a huge multi-product selling corporation. Well it owns one anyway. Yes it would have competition from other companies. And yes there would still be a tax. 4. A thing that allows people to donate money to the government in order to help pay for things. Donations should be able to be made online and anonymously. 5. Universal Education tax. Tax the people to pay for education in all forms not just primary and secondary school but university and college. That way students won't have to pay thousands for education as they will slowly pay it all back over the coarse of their lives. All schools should be able to choose how much money they receive through this tax and should be able to have a price the student has to pay themselves anyway if they wish. [simplified Example: School A chooses to receive £4200 for every student they take in, and does not charge students money for being educated there. School B however wants to only take on £700 per student they receive and the student must pay a £3200 price for being educated there because its headmaster liked the old days when students paid their own education fees.] There would be a limit on how much schools can charge. @Lemur: This wouldn't require any interest. Also loans = you now have debt. This way you don't have debt. [unless you decide to go to a school that wants to charge you something.] As this tax would ideally be the same for everyone it would provide people with more incentives to keep this system working at its best. If your going to pay the tax anyway you may as well actually go to university. Also this tax would help poorer people to go to university. Etc. It is better than raising fees to £9000. 6. No more real monetary system. Replace with 'virtual' monetary system. To eliminate this whole thing of currency increasing and decreasing in value and to eliminate inflation and deflation. It causes too many problems. I don't see why we attach value to a thing that is now usually stored as a line of code inside a computer. I'm not saying eliminate coins and money. Just that we shouldn't place a value on it. In other words: You work. You gain this thing called money. The money entitles you to objects like food. Basically like ration coupons. More money = more food. Just like more ration coupons = more food. Except instead of food it is all objects that we can buy. To clarify: I mean destroy all value of money. That way you can't have a value of money that goes up and down. The economy can then actually grow. Have units of money instead. 1 monies = 1 pence 100 monies = 1 pound 1000 monies = 1 Dollar 10000 monies = 1 Yen 100000 monies = 1 Zen Etc. By the way...these are just random names for units of money. I'm not actually suggesting these be the units of money. By the way. In my current understanding of the economy we have an anti-economy. An economy that kills itself slowly. We need more money right? ...but if we print more the money is worth less and so ultimately we have gained no spendable money. We have in basically limited the amount on money that is allowed to exist. In order to fix our problems we would have to either eliminate the value placed on money or somehow raise the amount of money that our global economy allows to exist. We need more and more money as we progress because progress costs money...but we have unfortunately already hit the cap. @Lemur: I'm not going to try and convince them to lower prices...That isn't my suggestion. My suggestion is to remove the value of currency completely. Basically the current system does no allow the creation of money. Only redistribution. Trying to create some leads to your money to lose value. This means though you have money your money is worth less so your net gain of money is 0. The raise prices because how much the food is worth doesn't change but how much the money is worth does. This is good in the fact that it stops governments simply printing money whenever they need it effectively giving them infinite money and rendering a monetary system quite useless. ...but there is a problem. Now that money cannot be created there is limited supply...but we need more. Hence debts. If one country pays of all it's debt it has to take money from another to get do so. They don't even have to ask. The money is transferred through good trading. The money just keeps going round and round in a circle around the countries. No new money is made. However if money was valueless then you could create more. Which we need because progress costs money. It's like in games where the newer technology progressively costs more and more but having it makes it easier for you to acquire some. 7. Global electrical grid. In places where two cities neighbour each other and are very close by their power grids are separate yet it wouldn't be hard to link them. With a linked power grid we could spread electricity more evenly. In Europe and stuff we are worried about overloading the grid. In developing countries however they do not have enough power plants to feed demand. We should have special building near the borders of countries. These building would have a power supply from both countries that it is on/near the border of. These building would be able to either send the electricity back into the country it came from or connect the two grids when the event happens that power is necessary in one country and there is too much in the other. We have the technology. ...Why is this in politics? Well agreements would have to be made between the two countries in order to make this work.

^^ I don't understand mulreay's question...

Robot's view:...My study of humans has constantly shown that alcohol makes humans more illogical and stupid than usual. It only causes problems. Suggested coarse of action: Delete alcohol. Alien's view: Yesh this stuff tastes terrible. My point of view: It tastes terrible, looks terrible, smells terrible, it's actually poison, Why are you drinking it? It tastes terrible? Why would you drink it? It makes no sense. In response to the question: Bad for society, the problems caused by consumption of alcohol leads to money being spent on fixing problems that wouldn't have happened if alcohol was not consumed. I see no reason why it would be good for society. All it would do is anger many people. It would lead to benefits in other areas however. When people drink alcohol it inhibits intelligent thought meaning they behave more like they would if they were animals. Urinating where they shouldn't. Mating with other humans without thinking properly about the events that would follow. Sleeping in places they shouldn't. etc. The only alcohol I would ever permit someone to drink is red wine. Why? Small amounts of it can actually be beneficial to health. [it contains flavonoids. (Vitamin P)] All the others are useless, terrible tasting, vomit inducing, organ damaging, poisons.

More jobs for doctors? I dunno...it was mainly meant for those in long term or permanent jail sentences. Stop drain on our resources...like money... I know it is a bad idea...I never said it was a good idea...I was just suggesting it...

...Are you still on info' Entropy!?!?!?!? Information is not a real thing. Will you stop thinking it is real. It does NOT exist. Info' entropy therefore does not apply to anything other than information. Info' is an invention of the mind!

...I wasn't talking about deterring crime. The only way to do that would be to be so cruel and evil it would probably violate human rights.

Capital punishment is murder...you are killing someone intentionally with forethought aren't you? That's called murder.So whoever the executioner(s) is(are) they too should be executed for murder. Law doesn't and shouldn't make any exceptions...hey, it's your law. Can't we just put them into reversible comas/sustained unconsciousness...they require less resources that way. We should probably also sterilise them to stop them having children. I don't think a that all people deserve to procreate. Not all criminals...just in crimes that it is appropriate in: Eg: Repeat drug use offences, serial murder, rape. That way we don't kill them...We just steal several years of their lives...and their ability to procreate.

...What the topic descriptions says...How much energy do you think it would take to split a quark? I don't care which flavour of quark.[Though it would be nice to know which one you are talking about]

...but Saturn's rings are solid...it is written in pretty much every textbook that they are made mainly of ice...ice is a solid... ...Why would it crash to Earth? The gas giants have rings...He didn't specify the distance the rings are from Earth...He just said that they must be built around Earth...Also the pillars are unnecessary.

I don't know where you read that microwaves are only absorbed by water but that isn't true...Microwaves are absorbed by many things...