CaptainPanic

Yup. That's my point exactly. And the cleaner might respond that your certainty ("there was no way") of not being off on time was based on a very limited set of assumptions which are inadequate to be 100% certain about the outcome. Or he might get annoyed with you, and just kick you out.

I disagree. Ͽ thinks, therefore Ͽ drives a yellow bicycle. See? I just argued. There's a huge difference between not being able to argue about something, and not being able to win the argument. You would have won the argument that I just started. But I started the argument by disagreeing. It might be bulletproof, but it can't stand up against sharks with frickin' lasers.

You have a very specific question: sewage treatment. First of all, I think there are no laws preventing simply dumping it in the open ocean. If you're in international waters, you can do that. But there are other options. Water treatment plants can be quite small, so fits to have one on board. Read this (search for "zenon") to see what cruise ships do with their water. Regardless of what they do with it, there will be a solid residue, which must either be offloaded onto another ship, or burned. So, it's not much of a problem really.

I remember that there is a possibility - especially in GMO - where cells aren't 'balanced', and certain essential parts cannot reproduce quickly enough (RNA? Some other part that also needs to be copied, like RNA, DNA?). Again, I may be completely wrong.

Sure. Prove to me that you actually think, then we'll talk again. And why would you need form to exist? I'm not saying that I am making a good case here (you would probably win this discussion). I am only showing that you can argue with such a statement too. You can argue against everything, except this sentence.

In addition, certain microorganisms can reproduce, but lose their ability to reproduce after a certain period of time (under certain conditions). I'm no microbiologist, so perhaps some of our resident experts can add the correct terminology for this phenomenon. So, a star that goes supernova enables the formation of new stars... and this cycle can repeat a number of times. You can perhaps find some analogy in the microorganisms that can multiply a couple of times before losing this ability... But perhaps I am missing something essential here... this is not my expertise.

It seems you conclude that the box is in the house. But the house can be in the box too.

And I think we should not change the way we treat the crackpots. This forum is fine the way it is: We tell them that we disagree, and why so. This thread just feels like mockery, and I disagree with it. And I will explain you why (in this post and my previous two). Let me apologise for hijacking the thread btw. If we find out that there is enough support, I'll rest my case. Phi would do well to restart such a thread (linking to the conclusion in this thread). Anyway, if you really feel mocked, you have two more options: to ignore them (just don't click on the thread), or if it goes too far, you can even report someone. The forum rules are really quite strict already... The crackpot examples given in this thread are probably fine... I just feared that it would sooner or later insult someone.

To whoever gave me the -1 in my previous post: You should bloody well open your mind, be tolerant to new ideas, and try harder to understand my point! Or at least have the decency to explain what's wrong with it. Without such an explanation, I'll stick to my point. I'm just saying that sometimes kids can have trouble to accept new ideas too, if we explain them poorly (or if we assume that they can understand our scientific language when in fact they understand the individual words, but not the message we try to convey). And in addition, I fear that sometimes we attack some people so hard on their idea, that we practically force them to defend their point. It's a natural response. If you think you have a good idea, and someone then explains that not something, but everything is wrong with that idea, then some people might reply saying "Oh yea, and who are you?". Also, often we (myself included) reply with an explanation that science just works in a particular way, which this person doesn't seem to follow yet... or we explain some established theories. But you might say that from their point of view, that is even a fallacy (argument from authority, because the person is obviously not familiar with these theories or methods). Ok, I know that this is a tricky argument I have here... but approach this from the other person's viewpoint. They have an idea. We dismiss it because it doesn't fit in our "science". From their point of view, it is a fallacy to use that as an argument. Anyway, please note that I see no way out: We must reply like this... this is a scienceforum after all. But we always risk alienating someone because we often give a reply that someone's idea just does not work, and that the only logical next step is to abandon the idea altogether. Some people need a while to accept that. Some people will reply 20 times before they give up and leave the idea for what it is (crap). But you're only a crackpot if you never ever give up. Of course, in an open anonymous forum on the internet, it is impossible to estimate which reply is the most effective when someone new just joined the forum with a new theory. So, yes, we will always make mistakes. But I remember threads where someone defended an idea for 5-6 posts, and finally said "Ok, now I understand. Thanks. I'll move on." We shouldn't call someone a crackpot before they actually are. And if you learn, you're not a crackpot. Of course, the internet is full of real crackpots. But I just want to wonder out loud here about what is worse: to be too soft on the crackpots, or too hard on people who mean well? Remember that learning science (in general) takes many years. We cannot teach someone to be a good scientist in the course of 1 thread. So, I vote that unless we can backup our claim that someone is a crackpot with some proper references (to crackpot papers or crackpot presentations), we don't call anyone a crackpot. I agree that dismissing all of science without a good reason, or disagreeing with basic maths without a good replacement, is unacceptable on this forum. But we should at all times just explain that in a thread where the post is made. Not in a separate thread where the quote may be out of context (however hilarious the quote may be). imatfaal, I completely agree... but we have the forum rules against that. Just report it. That sounds like a personal attack, which is not allowed under forum rule section 2, #1.

I disagree. It is Newton who can't argue with Einstein because he is dead. Einstein can actually argue with (or at least about) Newton. And he did. In fact, he came up with an improved theory... how is that not arguing??

Just a remark and a worry, no quotes: The difference between a crackpot and a child is that the crackpot will defend the new theory to the death and refuse to learn, whereas the child will attempt to learn what's wrong with it, and move on or adapt the theory. Sometimes children can seem like crackpots, because they just don't understand the given explanation why their theory is wrong. Some will keep challenging the explanations (and continue to defend their new theory) simply because the explanations were inadequate. That is our fault, not theirs. We, as a science forum, were age is irrelevant, need to understand that kids are kids. Kids are not hampered by too much knowledge, and as a result have weird ideas sometimes. Sometimes these are brilliant in their simplicity, and sometimes they are sadly oversimplifying the reality. But they will hopefully learn. I just wish to express my worries here that we might ridicule people who attempt to actually learn (although I share all your frustrations about the people who categorically refuse to learn).

Depends on the color of the box.

Please explain again (and better) what you want, because it is not so clear.

There are 2 things we need to achieve: 1. Very efficient machines (i.e. using the "perpetual" word: it's close to perpetual motion, but not quite... It means it doesn't need much energy to keep going) 2. A good source of energy. This will never be anything with "perpetual", although we might assume that the sun will be there for a while, and other sources are also going to be around for a long time. And whatever source of energy we use, we will lose some when we convert it into the form we need. And after we used this energy, it will all become heat, which is still energy. Energy is always conserved. Some heat can be used again, and some not. And in the very end, it's all useless heat (but still the same amount of energy - just the wrong type). And there is nothing perpetual about that at all. In the end, we need to dissipate the heat, and just get rid of it. And the study to use energy a couple of times, and reuse the energy and heat as much as possible, and to get rid of the waste heat efficiently, that is exactly what thermodynamics is about.

If you can remove all friction, then something should in theory keep moving forever. Perpetual motion. But there is no such thing as zero friction. There is always friction. Always. Perpetual energy is something different altogether. Now, you do not just want something to keep moving. You want to gain energy from it. That's impossible, even in the theoretical zero friction case. If you get energy from somewhere, energy is transferred. For example: Something is really high, and falls down. It loses potential energy, and gets kinetic energy and heat (heat is from friction). In every transfer of energy, there is always some loss. The loss is never zero, and you can not get more out on one end than goes in on the other. Resistance is always lost in the form of heat. And the problem with heat is that you cannot use 100% of it, because of the laws of thermodynamics... so you will always really lose some of it.

I do not think that cartoons are too violent. But I do think they are too dumb. You can easily squeeze something to learn into a cartoon... and kids will absorb it without even knowing it. Put some biology lessons, or the alphabet, or simple maths into the cartoon, and kids will watch it just as happily.

Hmm... did you know that your body also makes all kinds of "drugs"? Endorphins for example are like opiates, but are made inside your own body! You make drugs! And in addition to a lot of drugs that you make yourself, we take a lot of drugs too (not just alcohol or the illegal drugs). Here's some more: Serotonin: Morphine (yep, the real thing): Epinephrine Is there something seriously wrong with society that we like our own bodies to make all kinds of chemicals that make us feel good or change our mood? Maybe there is something seriously wrong with nature that we are constantly being drugged by ourselves, because apparently this happens all the time! There are even chemicals that make us sleepy. So, when you want to go to sleep, you are on drugs. But... you will now probably say that this is all natural. But alcohol is taken by us, not produced in the body. Ok... I know. Then what about chocolate (scroll down to "CHOCOLATE : the Psychoactive Cocktail")? Seems that chocolate releases those endorphins too, and it contains a whole bunch of other biologically active chemicals too - and surely taking some candy to make your body release drugs is just as bad as alcohol then? Or, what about coffee, tea, or energy drinks? They have chemicals that interact with your body and brain... and the effect can be quite strong! Even an ordinary good meal releases a whole cocktail of drugs... and a lot of food that we eat is not strickly necessary. We could just eat a carbohydrate/protein shake with some added vitamins (or whatever). But no, we like to eat "good food". Why? You think that's not like drugging yourself?? That feeling of joy and happiness is just a chemical cocktail, either coming directly from the food, or being produced in your body as a result of the food. And it sure as hell is addictive. Find me one person who doesn't like good food. One person who says: "just get me the essential building blocks that I need, and don't bother about the taste". Or find me one person who does not sometimes eat too much. Why are dinner parties just as common as drinking parties? Because food makes you feel good. You're being drugged. An enormous cascade of chemicals are released... some make you sleepy. Some make you happy. I think there are more obese (=fat) people than alcoholics (can't prove that now though). And there are certainly more people who like "good food" than people that drink alcohol (because I think there are no people that do not like good food, although taste differs). The effects of eating too much can be devastating, but only on the long term. Just like with alcohol, people go for the short term happiness of feeling nice, and do not care about long term health effects of getting too fat. Shall we make nice food illegal? How about chocolate? Or caffeine? So, tell me, if we look at all of that... can we maybe just conclude that changing the chemical balance in our bodies is quite natural and normal... and that alcohol is just one chemical in a long, long list of others?

Did you try Google? Other scientific search engines (science direct)? You know, us "scientists" also have to go and search. It would be quite a coincidence if some of us would have exactly what you need lying around.

Ok, so the wikipedia definition is accepted (you used it too). I disagree with your last post. But I will not explain why, because that would be an argument... and I would persuade you to change your opinion. So, I merely disagree. (Was that any good?) Oh, whatever... I can't do it. Let's have an argument! I think an argument is impossible to avoid. There is no such thing as a fact that you cannot disagree with, because it is to your conversational partner to choose whether he/she disagrees, not the person stating the fact. Even if you say that 1+1=2, I can choose to disagree with it. And there is no way that you can present your fact in such a way that disagreeing is completely impossible, although it certainly is foolish to disagree with certain facts. In fact, in the Principia Mathematica, they need 379 pages to prove that 1+1=2 (and it was only published in 1910). I guess people have had an argument about that too then... Even if there would be certain facts that cannot be disagreed with, wouldn't the conversation be empty? The more complicated relations and connections among things are far more interesting than dull facts. And the whole purpose of logic is to give a structure to the argument... when we even have a structure for our arguments, why shouldn't we use it? It is the challenge to engage in a discussion and to persuade the other which makes it so much fun to discuss and argue. It's a different thing when you talk about miscommunications or fallacies of course. A fallacy is an attempt to persuade someone using false arguments. And in fact, those are against the forum's rules. Btw, it is also difficult to avoid fallacies. A miscommunication is another problem, where people just don't understand each other (or sometimes refuse to understand each other). Again, this is sometimes difficult to avoid.

We should first agree on the definition of "Argument". Because I use this definition (link to wikipedia): But "argument" can have many meanings... and it can even be a synonym for a fight.

This discussion is meaningless if you do not agree what a "choice" or a "decision" is. If you take it down to a Planck time and Planck Length difference, then the total options quickly spiral out of control, and are totally dependent on the number of particles, the temperature, the space (volume) and the time frame in your system in which you take your "choices". of water. So, what's a "choice"?

I do not think you're making the right decision, and I think you're wasting money... but I think you do not understand how expensive heating can be, so I will see if I can explain the basics first. 80,000 BTU is the equivalent of about 70-80 sqft of natural gas, or for example about 4 kg of wood. I guess that is what a single heater will use in 1 day. How many such heaters do you have? Depending on the gas prices where you are, one single heater will burn up around $1 - $2 per day. Depending how many days you heat, this can go up to $50 - $600 per year... and that's just for 1 heater. Do you know how much you spend to heat the whole place every day? You really need to make a good estimate of the costs of the energy (for the next couple of years!) before you can conclude that a roof is too expensive!!!!

Allow me to be the opposition in this discussion... I am able to take this entire thread, and find/replace "music" with "thermodynamics", "agriculture" or "architecture", and have exactly the same result. All those fields are worthy of long and interesting discussions. We have multiple places where you can fit discussions about music. The "Other Sciences" forum, "The Lounge", or if it is really alternative music, maybe "Speculations". I have nothing against a music subforum in particular... but if we are going to expand SFN, then I think there are more popular topics which might need a place of their own.

Oh, yes... you misunderstood me. I was just talking about the ratio of the time of pedaling to the time you can go full-power with the smallest motors... which is about 1:2. Below, you say it is more like 1:7.5 (because you picked a larger motor than me). 2hp is about 1500 W, yes. Good luck!

Ok, I checked the movie a little (although I still think you could provide a little more info regarding its contents). I have to say that he seems to correctly question some weak points in our existing theories. Maybe I'll watch the rest later. It takes quite a long time until the guy comes to the point... (too long for a coffee break).