Acme

Tidal forces are mentioned in the study above. [bolding mine] Jupiter not having the heat of a star, the tidal forces were not secondary for Comet ShoemakerLevy 9 which broke up before impact of the planet.

You're welcome. I saved it too and I'm still reading it around other activities and thought of quoting some at length but the notation doesn't copy/paste well to this format and I don't have the time just now to do the editing. Nonetheless, I found this bit on page 3 telling:

In spite of Phil in the above video saying some comets hit the Sun, (and in spite of my same claim) I found detailed analysis that says only the most massive comets could impact the surface, i.e. the photosphere. Nonetheless, this analysis does not say or suggest that a 'sun-striker' comet's mass is ejected by the solar wind in toto at the time of the impact. As I earlier said, that mass is in effect added to the mass of the Sun. Mass Loss, Destruction and Detection of Sun-grazing and -impacting Cometary Nuclei The entire article in PDF format is here: Mass Loss, Destruction and Detection of Sun-grazing and -impacting Cometary Nuclei

I would also point out that since CMEs and flares originate from the surface of the Sun, that IF comets were causing them they would have to hit that surface.

A fair comment to my fair comment. If 1x0's question means 'have we discovered all there is to discover in mathematics?', then the answer is an obvious and resounding no. Moreover, Gödel's proofs inform us that even for some things already discovered which appear to be true (because no exceptions have been found) are in fact true, no proof may ever be given. In this we can say never, i.e. consistent systems of axioms can never be complete and any complete system can never be consistent.

What I posted was 1 movie -not a photo- of a comet striking the Sun. Nothing in that movie indicates the comet slowed or otherwise had any 'trouble'. Moreover, there are many such movies which I linked to and not all such recorded comet strikes have coincident CMEs or other solar eruptions in the area of the strike. IIRC, in one recorded strike there was an eruption on the opposite side and the experts commented there was no known mechanism that would associate that eruption with the comet impact. Obviously that opposite eruption would not be blowing any of the comet material back into space.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean, either. But one possible answer is no; there is probably a lot of work done in mathematics, and theorems proven, which are never referred to again. So those "tools" are never used. I would take exception to saying "never" as it seemingly implies no such use is possible. Even if the use is not immediately in physics, one cannot say such tools won't in the future find utility in other -possibly equally arcane- proofs.

I don't know what this means. I don't quite get it either and we can hope 1x0 clarifies this question, but my inclination is to answer no as I think of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Erhm...nothing? NUMBER THEORY IN PHYSICS number theory and physics archive

Physicists Make Objects Invisible without Metamaterial Cloaking

I'm more than familiar with your mincing twisting of words and I'm not going to play that. StringJunky laid out the problem and others of us agree. While you and the staffers may run this place, it is after all a place for we the members.

That wasn't clear from your quote. You: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". If you think it's malice/unwillingness then stop it.

Well, many months ago in the thread on trolls you & I agreed to disagree so we'll have to be content with that. As for stupid, we're not allowed to characterize folks that way here as I have understood it, but I have to agree that a lot of what we have to put up with is indeed stupidity. Ignorance can be corrected with learning, but not stupidity. The stubbornness is surely an issue you mods can and should put the kibosh on with regards to the threads StringJunky is complaining about here. Enough is enough.

SPACE-BASED SOLAR POWER (SBSP): Solar power directly from space may arrive sooner than you think

I'll keep it in the back of my mind. Seems to me you ought to keep it in the front of your mind inasmuch as you started this thread and Hypervalent made it clear that your making reports is more than welcome. I agree. I'm in learning mode most of the time here, and that leaves little room for perceived competition. It's not about competition, perceived or otherwise. String had specific threads in mind when he started this topic and we are all painfully aware of which threads those are. Revisiting the OP: Those offenders who are at the root of the issue have no apparent interest in learning, rather they appear bent on pushing their idea, i.e. the soapboxing Klaynos mentioned. I think you [Phi] had similar concerns in mind when you started the Healthy Skepticism thread. By all means set me right if I am mistaken. If StringJunky and other members vexed for the umpteenth time at seeing these threads perpetuate don't make reports then the trend of aimless content-free waffling and stubbornness [say trolling] will continue. Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~Martin Luther King Jr.

Sleep paralysis; aka Old Hag Syndrome.

The down voting gives readers a good clue that something is amiss, however it does nothing to stop the insanity. Multiple reports of posts by more than one reader; now that lets the staff know the members are fed up and usually gets some action.

Mmmmmmmm! Cabrito kabobs. Goes great with tequila.

If you made no claim then all someone would have to do is make the claim as 'proof'. By claiming authorship you also leave open the possibility for others to contact you to ask questions, offer suggestions, or maybe even offer you work or compensation.

Seems not to be a psychological term as asked for. You're welcome. You can use a genderless term such as folks, as in 'thanks folks!"

I'm not aware of a specific term for the criteria you outline. I would say the general terminology is 'group bonding'. Addendum: Maybe look at Attachment theory

I think it's still important you choose a copyright declaration and use it as otherwise someone else may make the claim and attempt to enforce it. If you use the Creative Commons format you need only use the appropriate symbol as it is directly connected to the 'wordy' specifics.

Correct; only the copyright holder has the right to bring legal action.

Copyrights -or copylefts- are only as good as your defense of them. If there is a violation and you don't defend against it then you in effect abandon your rights.