StringJunky

Isn't the limit set by gravity i.e. the weight of water vs the vacuum above? The thinner the tube, the higher the water can rise for a given vacuum. Edit: Further down my link:

(－‸ლ)

I think the surface tension of the water column at the top of a capillary (xylem) will act like a solid piston head and the negative pressure above it is enough for that column to rise to fill the void. The xyla (?) are only microns in diameter. The xylem will have evolved to have a diameter that is optimal for the surface tension of the water and the height of the plant/tree.

The xylem tubes (water carriers) are narrow enough for transpiration from the roots to the leaves, by negative pressure due to evaporation in the leaves, is sufficient. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/follow-up-how-do-trees-ca/

"Hello, Big Brother here".

All I can think is that, in the absence of a unified aspiration, we can only look for our own.

Thank you, gentlemen. I think we've had variants on such ideas from such-type persons here on occasion. One knows not what lurks around them.

You've thought about this more than I have. I need to up my game.

Now you've got to tell me about Time Cube.

Isn't a proof an argument that can't be contradicted? Whatever path you take, you always end up in the same place.

A proof will never change. Evidence weighs on the balance of probabilities that can lead to high confidence but always leaves the door open.

From what I've read, the conjecture has been proven to be undecideable under the current paradigm. It needs new maths that doesn't currently exist.

Yes, on the Reuters site I often read along the lines of "President Trump accused Mr X of... without evidence"

The nicest sort.

Yeah, I googled her. She's my generation.