Strange

If such a god existed, it would be. Meanwhile back on Earth ...

Of course. The existence of gods is not scientifically decidable. Belief or non-belief is not a rational decision (even if someone justifies their opinion that way, post hoc - which both believers and non-believers do). It is like what music or food you like: a combination of experience and character

Unless you can explain what you are after, people will not be able to help.

! Moderator Note You need to provide more information (for this and your other thread) because it is not clear what you are asking

Farage is rarely there anyway. I don't expect the others to do anything useful either. Just take the money and then complain about how undemocratic it is that they have been elected to represent their country. Or maybe they will turn up and find out that there are a lot of dedicated and hard-working MEPs who take seriously the interests of their countries and the EU. Maybe they will learn something...

You won't find much discussion of the fact that you see patterns when you rub your eyes, or that you get dizzy if you spin round in circles, or get bruises if you punch yourself in the face. It just isn't very interesting. Hey, but kudos for actually discussing it rather than just posting once and then disappearing. Stick around if you are interested in science!

I believe in tai chi - millions of people do it every day. It definitely exists. It doesn't sound strange or ridiculous at all. That is the problem with this thread (and the other one about "OMG I CAN UNFOCUS MY EYES!!!1!! OOMMGG").

I'm sure it is similar. Although I might say Qi Gong, rather than Tai Chi. (Trivia: the qi in Qi Gong is not the same as the chi in Tai Chi - I used to think it was)

I don't think the word "won" really makes sense in a PR election with multiple "winners". And I would assume a landslide win means a large (and possibly unexpected) increase in the number of seats. As it is, Farage had a small increase so I don't know if it counts as a landslide.

Leave it. It is a good "honey pot" to stop them all starting a new thread! It is just a shame that the forum doesn't let you ignore threads like you can ignore users.

! Moderator Note Someone quoting an article to support their own point of view is not a straw man. This thread is closed to prevent any further escalation

I think you are right. I think there was a recent attempt to make a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority who said they had no jurisdiction over political ads

This is not the place to discuss your idea.

If it can't be proven wrong, then it isn't science. (You should look up the phrase "not even wrong".) Go away, come back when you have (a) learned some basic physics and (b) have some evidence. Which will require a mathematical model.

Yes, yes, we know. Every crackpot thinks that their theory is going to change the world; that they will be acknowledged as a hero; that we will all look like fools, and so on. They can't all be right. (But they can all be wrong.) BTW you forgot to put the copyright notice on your posts to stop someone "stealing your idea"

Not all new ideas are worth embracing. Ideas are easy. We see hundreds here from people with little or no understanding of the relevant science. One way to know if your idea is worth thinking further about or sharing is to test it. In physics, pretty much the only way of testing an idea is to check if it matches up (quantitatively) with the real world. That requires some mathematics. It doesn't need to be complete or final - many ideas use simplifications or approximations initially to do a "sanity check" (ie. is this idea even in the right ballpark). If you can't do that then you can't really provide any evidence to support your idea, so there is no reason for anyone else to consider it. Just because you like an idea, doesn't mean it is valuable. Also, if you don't have the background knowledge to develop even a rough mathematical model, then you probably don't know enough to judge if your thoughts/intuitions/guesses are meaningful. If you don't like the rules (that you agreed to when you joined) then you will have to post your idea elsewhere. There are science forums where your thread would be closed instantly because that sort of speculation would not be allowed. There are some that have similar rules to this one. And there are a few where you can post almost anything - but you will still get challenged by the members.

That is 35 not 30 (25% more than Farago) But I was talking about the percentages of the vote. (I just added a comment about the swing in terms of numbers; oddly it is the same as the percentages)

With a third of the vote. Your original claim was that Farage's gain of 7% was impressive. It isn't. Especially considering how much support he gets from the UK press. You also said there had been "no wild swings". I'm not sure if a gain of 20% for one side and a loss of 20% by the other side counts as "wild" but it is certainly significant. If there were another referendum (which would apparently be "undemocratic") then it seems likely the results would be very different from last time. They got 55.6% compared to his 31.6%. Nearly twice as much. Just looked at the numbers again and, by coincidence, the Leave supporting parties have lost exactly 20 seats, while the Remain parties have gained exactly 20 seats.

Some of them just didn't do very well. Full stop. John was responding to a post where you made a statement that did not appear to be supported by the data. He provided plenty of data to support what he said but you appear to dismiss this as "bias" and "shit". I can easily provide data to support the fact that the Brexit parties lost about 20% of their votes and the Remain parties gained about 20%. That seems to be a significant swing, contrary to what you said.

Although, across Europe the populists did less well than predicted.

No. It is up to you to provide evidence to support your claims. The first link references one paper that studied the effectiveness of chlorella for removing mercury in mice. The second doesn't mention algae at all. But this bring me back to my other question: How many people need to be "detoxified of heavy metals"? And it seems, from your references, that the use of algae and algal products is already being researched. So you don't really have anything new to propose.

He has gained about 7% at a time when he (and Brexit) is all over the news. So I find that pretty unimpressive. People are not voting for a party or even a policy (he has no manifesto) but for a personality with a slogan. The pro-Remain parties gained about 20% in the few weeks since the govt finally conceded that the election had to take place. That is impressive.

What does this have to do with your claim that: "And MICROALGAE freshwater (phytoplancton of CLEAN water, away from human), detoxifies of heavy metals." Do you have any evidence for that? (And I mean scientific evidence, not random anecdotes).

What evidence do you have for this? And how many people need to be "detoxified of heavy metals"? It seems you are claiming a "cure" for an almost non-existent problem.

Although Farago is claiming a victory because he won most seats, his share of the vote only increased by 7%. The other extremist parties gained no seats. The Brexit parties overall lost nearly 20% of their votes, while the pro-remain parties gained nearly 20%