Strange

Ironically, this is a typical crackpot argument. When people point out their errors, a common response is "you are only saying that because you are scared of new ideas" or (after perfectly reasonable counter-arguments) "my ideas must be right because they make you angry". Your childish "think of an idea game" seems to suggest that just thinking of an idea is better than rational thought. Crackpots have ideas that they refuse to drop in the face of contrary evidence or basic mathematical errors. Yet you seem to think that this is a good thing. More like a self-reinforcing scaffold. This is part of the problem with cranks, they think they can just knock down one pillar of physics. Not realising that then everything else has to change too.

They are significantly different both quantitatively and qualitatively. Electrons are fundamental particles (fermions) while protons are composite particles (hadrons). Protons are roughly 2,000 times more massive than electrons. The charge of quarks is +/- 1/3 or 2/3 You seem to be mixing up random bits of physics with your mathematics. I don't really understand what you are trying to say.

Can you explain why this reduces the mass of the body? I assume you mean: the horizontal acceleration of a 1kg mass to a velocity of 9.81 m/s in one second ... Can you explain how you calculated the value 1/30,581,039 ? OK. Just managed to work through the rest of your post. So you are completely discarding relativity, despite all the evidence? But, ignoring that, can you explain the logic behind dividing the vertical acceleration by the force required to accelerate to c in 1s? In other words, why does the mass reduce by this fraction? How does the force required to accelerate to c in 1 second relate to the energy of the matter? How does the energy calculated this way relate to Einstein's famous e=mc2?

So we can add "organism" to the growing list of words you have redefined. No, a cell (in a multicellular organism) is not an organism. And the page you linked to is not about reproduction. And if it were, it is not about the offspring of a parent being a little wart on the side that eventually gets washed away. The whole point about reproduction is that you end up with offspring which are copies of the parent(s) and which can go on and have their own offspring. This very obviously does not happen with planets. The human body does a very good job of maintain temperature, for example, within a narrow range. The Earth is not able to do that. Therefore not homeostasis. This is pointless. You just dismiss every flaw in your idea by redefining the words.

Quite. A constant state of change. Therefore NOT homeostasis. (Perhaps you should look up the definitions of the words you are using, instead of making up your own.) So, that's a "no" then. (You did notice that the question was about organisms reproducing?)

So you are going to ignore something for which there is quite a lot of evidence. (Nothing is ever "proved" in science, by the way.) While continuing to defend an idea which isn't supported by any evidence. And is contradicted by quite a bit. So not reproduction after all. I'm glad you agree now. So not alive. But the Earth doesn't. Except it isn't. It has no mechanisms to maintain a given state. Except they don't. It was life on Earth that produced the toxic (at the time) oxygen atmosphere. It is life that is causing global warming and hugely disturbing the status quo. So despite arrogantly telling other people to think before answering your questions, you can be bothered to think about their replies. Nice. That is the best thing you have said so far. Although I will wait for the evidence... I'm sure this has been answered. Can you think of an example of reproduction in the animal or plant kingdom, where the offspring just remains as a minute pimple on the surface of the adult and never have offspring of their own?

Of course you wouldn't expect to find only scientists. Many people are interested in science without being scientists. A better analogy would be a forum about theatre or art. Then you would not necessarily expect actors or painters. But what point are you trying to make? Are you saying that it is a good thing for people to stick relentlessly to erroneous ideas? So many crackpots try and defend that idea, it is a bit cliched. We need someone to revive phlogiston.

I am not going to come up with a scientific idea. But I can come up with an infinite number of ideas that make as much sense as some of the "personal theories" posted on this and other forums.

Yes, but there isn't.

While that may have some truth, especially metaphorically, it says nothing about the Earth as a living organism (which it obviously isn't).

The units of 0.5c is still m/s. v/c does not equal 0.5c. It might equal 0.5. Or v might equal 0.5c. But v/c can never equal 0.5c.

What is "it"? Earth has all that "life on Earth" needs. Not surprisingly; after all life evolved here. Of course, life in the past could not survive on Earth as it was when life first arose; and that early life could not survive on the modern Earth. So there is nothing special or necessary about the current conditions. Ho hum.

1 light-second? But even if you use that as the unit of speed, then v/c is still dimensionless because both v and c use the same units. And therefore gamma is dimensionless. It does. Usually metres/second.

Earth doesn't "need" anything. (Because it isn't living.) If they are external, then they aren't built in. Unless you want to claim that the entire solar system (or galaxy? or universe?) is alive?

v/c and c/c are both dimensionless. Obviously. What do you mean by "special meter/s"?

In that analogy, it may be better to think of the Earth as the rock that the egg has been deposited on, not the egg itself. And it may be more of an infection than an egg.

No, gamma is a dimensionless number: [math]\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}[/math]

In what qualitative way is a negative charge different from a positive charge? That doesn't really make sense; especially as, in many case, charge is relative. I would have said that positrons are much more like the "same stuff" (however you want to define that) than the absence of an electron is. While electron holes do have an effective positive charge, they don't share many other attributes with electrons. Their effective mass is much greater in semiconductors, for example. And I'm not sure, but I have never seen any reference to the spin of holes.

I thought you might have come back with something new. Something compelling. But just more videos.... It is impossible to tell, in the total absence of data.

No, because [math]\frac{v}{c^2} \Delta x[/math] has units of time (the same as [math]\Delta t'[/math]). So [math]\gamma[/math] is a dimensionless number.

Feel free to quote a poet who presents a different view. Although, Pope's insight has been borne out by research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Over-reacting, I would say. Clearly medical procedures need to be tightened up in the US. (The UK has recently had to treat a number of cases of similar diseases and so may be better prepared. And this may be one of the cases where a centralised health authority helps.) But with only two cases in people who were caring for a patient, it seems a little premature (and also a little late) to be considering some sort of mass quarantine and curfew. It was ridiculous that one of the nurses was advised it was OK to travel (and stupid of her to do it). I guess they won't be making that mistake again.

There is a difference, though. There are plenty of non-experts who think about these things. They may come up with questions or ideas of their own. If they present their questions or ideas here, you would expect them to get the questions answered and their ideas discussed. There have been threads started by people who have, say, worked out an idea about black holes or dark matter, which turns out to be very close to the scientific understanding of the subject. They have been thrilled when this is pointed out and the bits they didn't understand or have got wrong are explained. They are, what I would call "thinking people". You can have a reasonable and educational (for both sides) discussion with them. On the other hand, there are those who have come up with an idea (typically after "many years of study") which is not just slightly wrong, but contradicted by existing theory and substantial evidence. They will refuse to acknowledge that they might be wrong (after all, their theory is "logical"). They will dismiss or ignore contradictory evidence. They will cherry-pick supporting evidence (even if they have to misinterpret it to do so). They will dismiss the need for rigour and mathematics. They will probably insist that their idea is both important and urgent (and that they will be proved right one day). They will compare themselves to Einstein, Galileo or Faraday. They may get angry and offensive. They may claim there is a conspiracy - and, quite possibly, that the members of this forum are part of it. In short, they are closed minded and, apart from coming up with one idea, they are not prepared to think at all. These are the types who are labelled "crackpots". (Then there is another category who just spin long paragraphs of incomprehensible, pseudo-philosophical verbiage with lots of scientific-sounding words or phrases thrown in at random. But the less said about them the better.) Yes, I quoted it from this forum.

So? The thread is (mainly) about human nature. I would think a poet is as good a person as any to comment on that, if not better.

No progress yet, I see. As Lance seems to be willing to moderate his attitude, I thought I'd give him another chance. So, in the hope that counter-evidence won't be dismissed as being "nitpicking", there are a number of fundamental characteristics of life that are not met: Reproduction: The best you have managed is "mountains" which are just tiny ripples in the surface structure. You have failed to explain how this is different from a wart on the skin. Your answer was that a mountain has the same structure as the Earth, which is obviously not true. When challenged on this you suggested that the mountain could fly into space but later denied this. Also, because the Earth does not feed, even if it did manage to split of a child planet (disappointed you haven't pointed to the Moon, by the way) it could only do this by getting smaller. That is not reproduction, any more than having your leg amputated is. So we are left with no evidence at all of reproduction. Homoeostasis The planet does not have mechanisms to keep itself at some stable set of conditions. It is entirely dependent on external factors. It has gone through periods of ice ages and could, in principle, end up like Venus. Feeding and excreting waste The Earth does not feed in any meaningful sense. It absorbs a bit of energy from sunlight. But that does nothing to keep the Earth itself "alive". It is, of course, essential for most of the life on Earth. And the Earth does not excrete, except losing a small amount of gas (mainly hydrogen) from its upper atmosphere. So, in the end, as some have said, it is an interesting analogy but nothing to be taken too seriously. And certainly not taken literally.