Phi for All

How practical would it be to cut out and glue some blocked surface rubber sheeting circles to the bottom of your carriers? The raised blocks break the surface tension so the bottles won't hang up. The rubber and the glue you use need to withstand the chemicals and the heat. If rubber sheets/glue won't work, perhaps some kind of stainless steel bolt or screw can be added to the base of the carrier to raise the bottle off the base. It just needs to be raised enough to keep the bottles from resting flat against the base.

Nothing in science is ever set in stone, not even real theories. That's the beauty of it; if some evidence comes along to disprove what's come before, the theory has to change. If it was set in stone, no one would bother looking for new evidence. As far as support goes, every idea needs to start with a speculation and move through the rigorous scientific methodology in order to make a prediction that can be tested. If you can't take your idea through the steps, there is something that makes it supernatural, or outside of what is accepted and observable, makes it unsupported. If that's the case, you have to find a way to make it measurable by science or just accept that it will never be scientifically meaningful.

SFN - 101, Impossible - 0

You miss Indiana, dontcha?

I like capitalism, but I would limit government subsidization and lobbying. I don't think a little socialism would hurt, especially on the basics like health care (just because I think we're worth it). Our voting system sucks, so I'd like to tweak that a bit.

Did you get a chance to read the explanations before your post?

We kept yelling, "The tree, the TREE!" but you just waved.

I have one word for you, young man: Caltrops.

Anyone with the word "trip" in their name can join the race. Wear sneakers with laces.

Tell you what, you ride your unicycle, and Mr Skeptic and I will race you wearing these:

The misunderstanding stems from how scientific methodology differs from what you call intuition. Everyone with a question can arrive at an answer, and everyone uses an intuitive leap to peer into the future and guess what that answer might be. The difference is that a scientist doesn't rely on intuition to take him past that first step, and instead he builds up firm ground to walk on by researching, testing, analyzing, testing further and drawing careful conclusions, always sharing his findings with others so they can either follow him or show where his footing is not on firm ground. Intuition, when used beyond the initial question, is like taking a standing leap ahead to what you think is the next bit of firm ground. It may be firm, but how will you really know until you land? And how will others follow after if you haven't built up firm ground for them to walk on? Asking others to take the leap with you means you all may end up in quicksand instead of on firm ground, and scientists HATE quicksand. Does that make more sense?

There are other things besides replication limits that cause cells to die, but they may be covered by your "assuming our health was in good condition" clause.

"A man can do what he wants, but don't post it in the IRC Quotes Thread unless he said it in the chatroom".

If this were a site dedicated to grammar and someone kept calling nouns verbs, would you just let it go and get on with the discussion? If we were into boats and someone kept referring to what motor boats do as "sailing", would you not correct them each time so they could get the boating education they need? We've discussed this at great lengths. Keeping silent when someone is wrong lends tacit support to the error and misinforms those who read afterward.

Because science requires clarity in the use of terms, especially when the terms are non-mathematical. And in this particular instance, it's because so many want to jump over the details with no rigor. Calling a speculation a "theory" puts them almost on a par with "fact" in some people's minds.

Are these the little guys that can also treat wastewater? I found some related articles here. I wonder if they can find a bacteria that eats nuclear waste and creates power from it?

It's even more difficult when someone ignores all the times they are wrong and just insists they only need an intuitive mind to understand things the way Einstein and Tesla did (even though they are often wrong about Einstein and Tesla). walkntune, so many people are giving you great advice on what to study to gain a better grasp of what you're talking about but you don't seem to want to do the hard part and actually study. Does the convenience of having "intuition and reasoning mind" override being wrong so often?

There is evidence that Rep. Wilson actually has a backbone, however it's attached to strings controlled by the lobbyist above him.

That's just a prelude to one version of running/clutching an object like it's really valuable/screaming.

I wonder which would get you in trouble faster, running/waving/screaming, or running/clutching an object like it's really valuable/screaming? Or perhaps running/holding an object out in front of you like you can't wait to get rid of it/screaming? I firmly believe that part of the reason we tend to put on weight as we get older is because experience teaches us the "wisdom" of conserving our energy when we can. We're proud of learning to stack five items on the stairs that need to go up, so we can take them all in one trip instead of climbing the stairs five times. Then we celebrate how smart we are by going out and buying bigger pants.

It sort of gives it away when you can see the ventriloquist's lips move when the dummies talk.

I wonder if there isn't some top-shelf predator related stuff going on there as well. Fast movement grabs our attention and makes you an attractive target. When people see that there is a) no immediate threat to you, b) no immediate threat to them, and c) you aren't worth chasing down and bludgeoning, they are annoyed that you are running for no good reason. I wonder if we still have some predatory sense that tells us you are running because you have something we want, and perhaps we cover that up with the justification of dangerous behavior. Moderate running to appointments seems like a great way to maintain health, especially if you're too busy for more focused types of workouts. But we are funny creatures, ones who wish we could get more exercise opportunities while looking for the parking space closest to the store, or we take the elevator up three flights instead of using the stairs.

Very good point, Mr Skeptic. What would Einstein say about those who cherry pick his ideas only to justify what they hoped to find?

QFT. Now get up off your gluteus maximus and go find those answers!

...and the world of business. How can you justify having to build new prisons if the present ones aren't overcrowded with pot smokers? Thanks AMA, for not being afraid.