Phi for All

*sigh* It was moved from a mainstream section because it was reported that you weren't listening to anyone's reasons why your procedure lacked rigor. You used terminology that was inconsistent, you seemed to purposely misunderstand repeated explanations, and after seven pages everyone had given up trying to help you see the point. I should have moved it to Speculations after the second page where it became clear you were conflating theory and law, and kept insisting there is some sort of mass conspiracy amongst scientists to ignore new evidence in favor of confirmed bias for existing theory, which was demonstrated to you to be false. That is inconsistent with the purpose of mainstream topics. And you continue in this vein here as well. You show nothing new and simply harp on things you refuse to understand. I normally welcome critique on our policies, and would happily try anything to make the site more fun, but not at the expense of the intellectual honesty of the rest of the membership or proven scientific methodology.

As others have said, any kind of armor that provides a rigid shell might protect against the rider skidding along the ground or having small projectiles fired at him, but for the force of rapid deceleration or explosion it's worthless since it does nothing to reduce acceleration at a rate his body can withstand. Your skull protects your brain from blows, but if you run headfirst into a brick wall, even if your skull doesn't crack, your brain is going to slosh against the skull pretty hard. That's why helmets are designed the way they are. You'd be better off protecting the body that way instead of any amount of rigid, thick steel. It might make a dramatic image if the bike explosion was engineered in such a way that the force of it exactly negated the forward acceleration (as you say, emanating from the dashboard straight backwards at him), dropping his crushed body straight down to the road.

I must have misunderstood the question. I didn't see where there was an impact before the explosion. I assumed the bike exploded first, since that's all we were told. Certainly, if he survived the explosion, body armor (especially armor protecting only his legs and chest) wouldn't do anything to help him survive the deceleration. Why would a bike racer only protect his chest and legs? Your speeds allow us to assume the race is on a pretty flat, fairly straight surface. Even if we assume he wears a helmet, if the armor is supposed to help him survive a slide if he falls off the bike, aren't the back and arms extremely vulnerable in that situation?

How does the hoverbike work, is it suspended on an air cushion or do you have some sort of maglev action going on? Could someone have tampered with the bike's magnetic field so it ended up crushing him like a deep sea diver whose air fails? Most of his body would end up in his helmet.

I've never denied that faith is important, or useful, or comforts many people. As far as changing the mental world, I don't think it's nearly as strong as trust when it comes to the things worthy of our belief. While faith might comfort some mentally in certain special situations, trust in reality does more to promote a healthy mental respect for what actually happens in this universe, in my opinion. Faith shouldn't be considered stronger than trust in reality, but it often is, and sometimes people die because it is. Mental world affects the physical and sometimes people forget that.

Faith is NOT stronger than medicine: Second Child Dies After Parents Use Prayer, No Medicine.

Sort of like, "I, personally, have never seen my opponent's lips move when he reads, nor do I put any stock in the rumors that he counts on his fingers under the table when asked how many beers he has for breakfast."

I don't know about that. If you become known for using logical fallacies, it can bring your entire argument into question, even when it's good. You can poison your own well, so to speak.

I think it's like a boxing match. If you think you can get away with putting a horseshoe in your glove, it will definitely help you win, but if you get caught, the rest of your hard work is all for nothing.

This seems more like you're using the Springer study, which only suggests that there is some doubt about current explanations for how karst landforms develop, to lend credence to your claims that the Earth somehow magically had enough water to cover the entire surface a mere 5000 years ago. I don't consider this attack serious at all, and there is ample evidence there was never a time when all land masses were submerged. How could they be, where did the water go? In fact, this seems more like a creationist attack on evolution using a trivially refutable argument. It's speculation at best, and certainly doesn't deserve to be considered Science News.

Pick the most appropriate section (Engineering, Chemistry, Other Sciences, etc.), go there and click the Start New Topic button at the top right. Give it a descriptive title and then describe your problem. Please don't advertise your business, since links or any type of promotion/marketing in a thread is against the rules. Welcome!

I'm not sure if this qualifies for "imagining" things that aren't there, but the shows people can hear things aren't there.

Topic: "Should drug testing be mandatory for politicians caught having sex in church?"

Study logical fallacies, so you can avoid them personally and recognize them when used against you.

How we think is intrinsic to how we act. It has the capability to change EVERYTHING.

If you aren't referring to the process of evolution, then I misinterpreted. It just seemed like you were referring to evolution the first time, but not the second.

! Moderator Note Moved to Engineering from Speculations.

Two things. First, there are many people who are considered "starving" that are also considered "productive". I'm offended you might consider these people "a burden". Not everyone has the same set of circumstances in life, but that doesn't mean they don't contribute to society as a whole. Second, I think it's very important for science-minded folks not to misuse terms like "evolve". Your first use of "evolving" was fine, your second, well, not so much. A person doesn't evolve, evolution takes place only among populations over time. Also, there are no "higher levels" of evolution. Just sayin'.

Reading one of Kaku's books led me to Physics Forum and then here almost a decade ago. He's always been (to me, at least) the popsci hook that hopefully grabs your interest so it can be funneled into a more meaningful and accurate understanding. Hot dogs are tasty but steak will make you strong.

I'm pretty sure it depends on the fragrance you want. Some of it comes from pollen, some from petals, leaves and stalks. There are oils in the roots also. It varies from flower to flower. It also depends on why you're asking. Is this a question of where perfume fragrances from flowers are obtained, or are you asking what parts exude the fragrance that insects are attracted to?

! Moderator Note You have a thread open on this subject already. Please stay on topic for THIS thread in THIS section.

! Moderator Note This isn't even the thread for your theory. And it hasn't been a productive thread for quite some time. Closed.

I sincerely hope W's comments don't cause you (or anyone) to decrease the amount of time you spend here. W seems to be flailing around, trying to lift his leg at anything he can. I know his vitriol holds little value for you but none of us are immune to being poisoned. I think it's clear that W is following a well-known path towards vindication by banishment. He gets banned because of his attitude but will brag later that it was because of his ideas.

I think this proves you're no scientist. This is exactly what peer review does, it attacks the idea but not the person with the idea. I'd say you and this forum are incompatible. Your words are a true gift. Goodbye, good luck, good life.

The problem isn't with the knowledge, it really never is. The problem is with what people do with the knowledge. Change the system so parents don't ignore the signs that their children are seriously considering mass murder. Change the system so every child has a healthier respect for life on this planet. Change the system so people grow up knowing that the way they walk through life is their responsibility. But don't try to hide the knowledge. You'll just increase curiosity about it by a couple orders of magnitude.