Phi for All

How can you say this but claim we don't know all the stable elements? It's like you're claiming you could beat us all in rugby if you could find a racket with the right grip.

! Moderator Note The only offense is you breaking the rules. That's what I'm here for. I have no opinion on your idea, other than it doesn't have anywhere near the rigor and acceptance to call it a theory. But you aren't supporting your idea the way the rules say you need to. You're guessing and claiming it's true, and that won't fly here. Every site sets their own rules, and ours say we're not interested in your guesses, but if you care to support yourself with more than wavy hands, we're more than willing to listen. So once again, I will ask you to provide some support with something, anything more than just your word, that can be analyzed using actual science. I don't know how to be more fair and still do my job as moderator. Last chance.

! Moderator Note You need to support your ideas with evidence. These top physicists have plenty of it. You have nothing so far. Hand-waving and name-calling will not keep this thread open. Start answering the questions and provide links that support you. Without evidence, you're guessing and insisting you're right. The thread will be closed if you can't support it.

I think your viewpoint is too shallow for someone of your obvious intelligence. Reducing society down to an "either/or" perspective ignores the nuances necessary to make a society of individuals liveable. Killing an animal because you need to to eat is very different from sport. You seriously can't see that, or are you too first-world? Your other examples all seem negative, yet you don't understand killing to eat is a natural system? I guess in your worldview even eating a salad would be murder, right? Nothing goes.

! Moderator Note Moved from Speculations to Chemistry.

! Moderator Note Speculate with supportive evidence per the rules, please. If you make an assertion you can't support, you're guessing yet insisting you're right. The thread will get closed if you continue this way.

Not for stable elements and isotopes. We know all of those. Abundance varies depending where you are in the galaxy, but chemistry and physics would have to be fundamentally different for there to be new stable elements we don't know about, and we see zero evidence for that.

This doesn't show up on the illustration, and doesn't necessarily mean she marked the cake itself, but does she have to follow these original marks? Do we assume the knife can't be unbent to make a the single slice at the end? (my emphasis) Does "already" imply something other than impatience? It seems an odd word choice, which is always a red flag in a brain teaser. As far as I can read, no cuts have already been made.

I'm intrigued by this approach. At the very least it has the benefit that it isn't covered by a lot of willfully ignorant, oft-refuted, copy/paste creationist arguments. @Raider5678, if you continue in science, you'll learn that theories like evolution are so heavily evidenced that arguments against them as a whole are hopelessly outmatched by the sheer volume of predictions fulfilled by the theory's robust explanatory capabilities. It's not a question of belief (the way you use the word) at all. Evolution is a fact, and the way it behaves is explained by the theory. Like climate change, there is far too much evidence corroborated by far too many disciplines for science to be wrong about it by any meaningful degree.

A safe and reliable method for getting a dong big enough to touch the toilet seat when you sit down.

Are you suggesting it's our fault, or that we take on marketing responsibilities as well? Resources are slim. AFAIK we have minimal income from banner ads that pays upkeep only.

I was trying to remember which of his novels I've read, and this was it. The cheela on the neutron star, right? This story was great prep for understanding the dimensions in Flatland.

There has to be a lot of that in order to come to a place like this challenging mainstream science, right? I'd still like to know what other highly technical fields people feel free to criticize without knowing very much about it. Maybe I should head over to the airport and tell the air traffic controllers about my new ideas for landing more planes. Most of those guys probably aren't pilots, right, so my lack of flight time shouldn't be a drawback (I'm not a pilot but I've flown). In fact, I'm not bogged down by all their protocols and experience, so I might even come up with something nobody has thought of. Right off the top of my head, I think we should turn up the AC in the flight tower. Air traffic controllers should never sweat, because it makes pilots nervous, and it might get in the controllers eyes, or short out valuable electronics. See how easy that was? I can't believe all those "professional" controllers never came up with that. Really, it's sort of my duty as an air traffic controller to save all those people who would otherwise die without my insights and intuition. And if you don't agree and kick me out, I'll be forced to create as many accounts as necessary to save lives. A little awe would be appropriate right about now.

Sorry, I had to boot him too. He started spamming other threads. Now he gets to claim his stupid link would be the miracle that "proves" his idea is sound, but the horrible mainstream people keep deleting it (even though I left it here). I also don't think he understands that Dr Forward is a science fiction writer, and that his negative matter is purely hypothetical. Sockpuppeteers are intellectually dishonest, lazy, and ignorant.

This is the part that's hanging you up. There's no canceling effect if the pull from every direction is towards a single direction, and if it is a singularity at the center, it's dimensionless. Can someone clear up this conflict?

Well not you, you tit, you're a sockpuppet! Even when given a chance, you still can't respond meaningfully. Talk, talk, talk, no evidence at all.

I was posting about how sorry I feel for folks like this when he barged in again with a sockpuppet. It's like watching the Black Knight in Holy Grail insist he can beat Arthur despite having no leg to stand on. He claims he has the math to support his idea when he clearly and concisely explained how he doesn't know math.

OK, zbigniew, before you go, why is it you keep pushing these ideas that have no support, with links that only sound like they might? Why do you keep showing up when you're asked to leave? Why do you think your ignorance of science isn't as much of a detriment to your learning as being deaf or blind would be? There's a whole lot that you don't know you don't know about science. How can you be this arrogant and ignorant at the same time?

! Moderator Note Moved from Science News to Anatomy.

Many people go there with ideas they hope will click with someone who has the skills to seriously model them mathematically. What they don't realize is that those folks are already six steps ahead and have seen that it just won't work. It's ironic, in a way, that those folks often reject the input of the very people they came here to see, because their intuition overrides their trust in expertise.

! Moderator Note The OP is no longer with us, mainly for his inability to provide supportive evidence, along with a similar inability to follow the rules. If someone wants to explore facets of this concept and has questions, start a thread in a mainstream section. If someone wants to defend the OP's assertions with supportive evidence, start a thread in Speculations (no more sockpuppets, z). This thread is closed.

You might not be able to break it even if you jumped against it (don't). You'd need to hit it a few times with a big hammer to first score it and then shatter it. Safety glass breaks up into small bits rather than jagged shards, and lamination keeps the bits together. Auto windshields are like that, and even when broken tend to come out as a whole piece. You should definitely have the windows treated to reflect in the summer and let in the light in the winter. I'm surprised a high-rise building wouldn't do that just for the savings in HVAC. You use them when the view demands it. They also make a room look endlessly huge, which is a bonus for city dwellers. The video picture shows that it wasn't tempered safety glass (note the long jagged pieces). No lamination either. Good reason to have it. Apparently they leaned back against the glass and it shattered. Beforehand, they had been play-fighting, and I wonder if one of them didn't score or crack the glass during that mock fight.

Does it help if you picture gravity warping spacetime so drastically that there simply are no paths for anything to escape? There's just a single force, gravity, so there's nothing to cancel out.

Tempered safety glass, possibly even laminated. You can break it if you're really trying, but it's designed for most normal shocks. It can't be too rigid or it causes too much stress on the mountings. You may even see the glass "breathing" (flexing in and out) depending on your building's ventilation system. All perfectly normal. From the height you're at, even wood falling out would be dangerous to those below, but that shouldn't be your concern. It's the creepy part about standing right next to the edge, isn't it? You probably wouldn't get that close to a high drop off without that glass in place, and it seems too fragile to lean against.

! Moderator Note It's obvious that there's no more science to be had in this discussion, and the preaching has taken over. Thread closed.