swansont

! Moderator Note If you want to focus on the concepts of tradeoffs that would be fine, but it looks like you want to discuss details, and our emphasis has always been one topic per thread. So if the latter is the case, you should have a thread for each technology.

Slaves were property and not people. Reprehensible, yes, but in a legal view it meant the problem of rights was a non-issue. It's used all the time, in a lot of places. Color your opponent as vermin or insects, or anything other than human, in order to justify not treating them as people. That gives you leave to expel or exterminate them.

The bit I brought up about identical particles, and what Markus brought up about scaling of the interactions you didn't address. Both contradict your claims, and both have experimental evidence to support them Not good enough. The Pauli exclusion principle is predicated on identical particles, not "only tiny differences" If you are predicting differences between these particles, then they are not identical, and you are wrong. hey don't have an identifiable velocity, since they don't have identifiable trajectories. That's a classical notion, and not consistent with QM. No, not really, I don't see any kind of clear explanation of what the equality principle is.

! Moderator Note It's mainstream physics and taken as true for purposes of discussion. This is not your thread, which is for discussion of caracal's proposal (even though it has been falsified), not yours or anyone else's

"can I assume you are looking for chemical reference standards ?" ! Moderator Note They are posting from the same computer, so this was a setup. So, thread closed and both accounts banned according to our rule on sockpuppets.

! Moderator Note Which is not the terminology used by the OP. Cain and Abel was a dead giveaway.

! Moderator Note You should probably start with a more basic study of evolution to remove your misconceptions

! Moderator Note Adam and Eve are from the Bible, which has no relevance to a discussion of genetics ! Moderator Note You will need to establish that such genes exist.

How does Quantum Field Theory apply?

It would be that nobody challenged. SCOTUS (and the court system in general) can only rule on a case brought before them. The first SC case about abortion was in 1971 and Roe v Wade was 1973, so it was not about the SC reinterpreting anything. https://www.aclu.org/other/timeline-important-reproductive-freedom-cases-decided-supreme-court

I agree it should be The protons on earth all came from somewhere else. Electrons, too. Does it stand to reason that according to your conjecture, all protons and all electrons would all have slightly different masses, depending on their history? But we know that they don’t - protons are identical, and electrons are identical. And we know that’s the case, because the Pauli exclusion principle only works for identical fermions. If these particles weren’t identical, we wouldn’t have atoms as we know them. But we do.

AFAICT laws generally forbid things (you will be punished if you do X), rather than saying what you’re allowed to do. So, probably not, but it’s not surprising. There were, and it would be an issue of whether any laws restricting them were constitutional. i.e. does the government have the authority to make such laws.

! Moderator Note Posting screenshots of a conversation you had somewhere else isn't going to work. You need to post the information here, per the rules. We want to be able to quote you in order to respond. So start again, if you want. But starting with your first image in this last post, "gravitons with different velocities" In mainstream physics, if gravitons exist, they are massless and thus travel at c. If you have different velocities, you need to have a model that explains this. You can't build anything on this idea without establishing it first. (this is what I mean by getting ahead of yourself.) You want to do that in a new thread, fine. Anything beyond that - speculation built on other speculation - will get immediately sent to the trash. Anything that is a series of screenshots from somewhere else will also get sent to the trash.

How is your idea testable?

You're missing the point, and getting way ahead of yourself. Explain what these "seedling gravitons" are and how this idea works. Explain what you mean by the "cosmic bean stalk market" Explain how gravitons could possibly go FTL. Nobody wants to get bogged down in the calculations if the idea behind them doesn't work. You have to convince us that it's based on sound physics principles.

That's how such systems are currently implemented, but the OP stated "beds in lieu of seats" I think this is another example of solving but not really solving a problem, that doesn't exist in the first place. Personally, the thing that keeps me awake on long red-eye flights is the someone from the flight crew getting on the intercom every 20 minutes to make an announcement.

What if you don’t want to sleep for the entire flight? How many people want to do this?

! Moderator Note You have one more chance to explain what this is supposed to mean You can give an example: use your theory of everything to give the orbital distance of a geosynchronous orbit. Show us that calculation.

You don’t have this? Water around where I live gets transported to the Potomac and feed the washington aqueduct. Some parts of the storm drainage system are combined with the sewer system, some are not.

I'm allergic to cats.

We want useful information. Images with e.g. the square root of 4.13 and 3.14 repeated a bunch of times isn't what I would call useful. We want the science, not the algebra (or art) edit: I’m sure your explanations and manipulations make sense to you, but since you aren’t giving the context, they aren’t going to make sense to others. You need to explain why, and it needs to start from something that’s demonstrably correct.

Triangle STD: angle STD + TDS + TSD = 180 TSD is given as 48º There are two other triangles which you should be able to write down, and you have TDS + TDV = 180 The rest is algebra, which you need to be able to do, and no, nobody is going to do it for you.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 (emphasis added): Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Also, as it is UFO nonsense, this falls well short of the rigor we need.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7: members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links IOW, post the material for discussion here. And note that we are poised to add a new part to this rule: no shortened links. You must post the url where you are sending people.

! Moderator Note Correlation does not imply causality, though in this case, posting crap (incorrect info, unsubstantiated assertions, logical fallacies) does cause a thread to be moved to the trash.