swansont

The mods are not elected officials, and the membership does not get to vote on issues. It's more like someone's house, and you can drop in for a visit and have a discussion. There are rules they wish you to follow, and are welcome if you can engage in civil discourse. If you show up (or become) drunk and disruptive you will be shown the door. If you try and peddle wares, want to give us a copy of the Watchtower (or equivalent) or are trying to siphon folks to a discussion down the street, or expose yourself, you will be booted off the porch. You don't set the rules, the owners/caretakers of the house do. It's private property. You leap from "not a democracy" straight to Godwin. Seriously? No middle ground? Do you expect a family (especially with 3 or more kids) to be a democracy? "Let's vote: who wants ice cream for dinner?" We generally don't have families run like that, so this like like Oprah — YOU are Hitler, and YOU are Hitler, and YOU are Hitler, and YOU are Hitler! Bull. But that's an actual scientific discussion, and not so much support/comments. Go ahead and bring it up in its own thread and watch it be dismantled.

This isn't a democracy.

Time for the periodic reminder that disagreement is not a personal attack, and that pointing out where you are wrong is not ad hominem.

Or use the same equation. 1/2 vf = sqrt(2aL)/2, as you say. So put that into the equation v2 = 2ax (v0 is still 0)and solve for x 2aL/4 = 2ax x = L/4 Intuitively you might expect this, in terms of potential and kinetic energy. An object that doubles its speed has 4x the energy, so it has to travel 4x as far.

No, you aren't. v0 isn't 1/2v, since it starts at rest. v0 = 0 But you could use that equation to determine the speed at L, and then solve for half that speed. Using v0 = 0, the equation becomes vf2 = 2ax

yemtu has been banned as another joshgreen sockpuppet

The speculations forum draws a fair amount of lively discussion. Here are some guidelines for ALL participants. The official rules regarding the Speculations forum The Speculations forum is provided for those who like to hypothesize new ideas in science. To enrich our discussions above the level of Wild Ass Guesswork (WAG) and give as much meaning as possible to such speculations, we do have some special rules to follow: Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either. Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory. The movement of a thread into (or out of) Speculations is ultimately at the discretion of moderators, and will be determined on a case by case basis. For those of you who are posting here: this is a science forum, and speculations are still to be discussed in that context. If it doesn't fit as a science discussion, or you refuse to discuss the idea as such, the thread will be closed down. 1. If you are presenting some new conjecture and insisting that it is correct, or are objecting to some mainstream theory, you need to back up your position and will be expected to do so. It's a far better approach to ask questions if it's a matter of not understanding how some scientific principle works. Once you insist your idea is right (or some other idea is wrong) the burden of proof is on you, so expect to be challenged and to defend your idea. Some kind of scientific model, comparison with evidence, specific predictions or other ways of falsifying your idea are a MUST. Consider the first question you must address as "How could this be tested to ensure that it's true?" That's what a model does it allows one to predict outcomes under specific conditions so that they can be compared with experiment. - A model is often an equation or set of equations, so that one can predict some measurable outcome under a set of measurable conditions. V = IR is a simple model in electricity. All of the terms represent something physically measurable. Systematically choosing two of the variables allows you predict the third one, which can be compared with the measurement. - evidence means scientific evidence, i.e. it is objective and specific, and to be useful, it has to differentiate your idea from any existing model. Anecdotes don't count, and logic without a physical experiment this includes thought experiment is insufficient (though these can be used to make predictions) 2. Huge "walls of text" are usually difficult to get through and discourage participation. Present an abstract — a distillation of your idea first. Get into the details afterwards. It has to be posted here, though. Simply linking to an outside site for text or video is not sufficient, and against the rules. 3. Specific predictions often require math. Do not expect others to do your math for you, nor should you consider the math to be a trivial and therefore unimportant part of your conjecture it's usually crucial. e.g. a vague explanation that something will get hot would not separate your idea from some other idea. Predicting a temperature dependence on certain conditions would allow for that. In cases where math may not be required, you still need to be able to make predictions that distinguish your idea from existing theories, e.g. predicting some result where mainstream theory predicts nothing happens, or some other clear distinction. If you can't do this, it's a sign you need a more detailed model. 4. It's a good idea to explain what new ground you're covering if it's a new hypothesis, what problem with the mainstream theory does this new idea solve? If it's a critique, clearly explain the alleged shortcoming(s) of the existing theory. To do this properly you need to be familiar with the area of science into which your idea would fit, or the material you are critiquing. You must also know the terminology. You can't effectively communicate if you are using different definitions than everyone else, or making up nomenclature for things where it already exists. The dictionary is not a good substitute for a science textbook, because science uses specific definitions. 5. You can't ignore criticism of your idea. When someone points out where a prediction fails to match experiment or some other sticking point, you need to address the issue. This is a two-way discussion, not a lecture. It doesn't matter if your idea appears explain one phenomenon if it fails elsewhere that it's expected to work. 6. If your post was moved to speculations and you want know why, read this. To all of those responding to Speculations posts: Remember that non-participation is always an option. If you have nothing constructive to add to the conversation, please stay out of it. Posts that simply state "word salad" add no value. Accusations of trolling or crackpottery, or other snide remarks, are similarly devoid of useful content, and depending on how you phrase the post, can be considered personal attacks. Focus on pushing the thread in the direction of science rather than creating noise. If your post is only adding noise, it may be hidden. Responses should be in terms of accepted science, not your own personal theory. Don't use the post to raise independent questions of your own those belong in a new thread. All conversation should be addressing the original concept, or correcting/clarifying responses to that. ==== Discussion of these points can take place here

I just finished "Devil in the Grove" by Gilbert King, and won the 2013 Pulitzer for nonfiction. It's about racism and justice (or lack thereof) in the south, just after WWII, and recounts the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund's involvement, with a large dose of Thurgood Marshall's career up through that point, as well. Excellent book — a very compelling read. (Gilbert King was a high school classmate of mine, and if you told me someone from our class would eventually win a Pulitzer he wouldn't have been particularly high on the list of my guesses. A good example of people hitting their stride later on in life, and how high school is not necessarily a good predictor of one's future)

barfbag has been banned for his apparent inability to post without insulting people nor follow moderator direction to not respond to moderator notes.

Upon further review, joshgreen's seat has been upgraded to permanent ban.

JebediahK was banned as a sockpuppet of TJ McCaustland. TJ has been suspended 7 days. ——— Tim the Plumber has been suspended 7 days for topping off his continued trolling via persistent fallacies, and personal attack, with an abusive PM.

Since it's come up Why was my post moved to Speculations?

As an expansion of "vocabulary" in post #3: you can't co-opt terminology from the branch of science you're discussing and have any hope of communication without causing an immense amount of frustration with your audience. If the terms you are using are already defined, using the term with some new, custom definition simply isn't going to work. Learning the standard nomenclature is your burden, it is not incumbent upon the scientific community to learn your unique definition of words that are already in widespread use. As a reminder, while certain announcement threads like this are locked, discussions of them exist in unlocked threads you can find by searching, or you can start a new thread.

A question about having to provide links when an opinion was offered has come up, and not for the first time. It's been added to the FAQ

Relative has been suspended for a week three days for continuing to steer his discussions back to speculations discussions which have been closed.

Popcorn Sutton has been banned for being a chronic pain in the moderator. There is a long list of offenses; many of the posts have been hidden from view for being inappropriate or not conducive to discussion. Enough is enough.

! Moderator Note Possibly truer than you intended. The word cited is an issue here. You cited nothing in that post; you made some assertions. A citation in this context is a quote or link to some kind of substantiating work (preferably a scholarly work, but that depends on the circumstances), and that is generally lacking in your posts. Without some kind of reference, nobody can assess whether what you've stated is indeed factual. Unless you are claiming personal expertise (which you have already disavowed), then such citations are necessary. Otherwise this is simply soapboxing. It is what all crackpots are up against, and sadly, a hurdle they never seem to be able to clear. To all: let's tone down the rhetoric. (as an example, accusations of lying really have no place in the discussion) Do not respond to this in the thread

chemistry student has been suspended 3 days for personal attacks in threads and trolling/harassing people via the PM system. another chance pls has been banned as a sockpuppet. 3 days means 3 days

And if it has a big cross-section, you don't need much of it. But if it has a small cross-section, you need a lot of it, and then the statement that 60% of the core is Helium doesn't mean it's all He-4, which affects your calculation. You have a section where you calculate the He from the outer part of the sun, and use that number in the total. So yes, you do calculate a number for the whole sun:

Two He-3 in the core are very unlikely to collide, which has to happen for them to fuse. The reaction rate is concentration-dependent. It's probably small enough it can be ignored, but I don't know for sure. The abundance you cite is for earth, where He-4 is (and has been) in constant production via alpha decay. There's no reason to assume that the sun (or any star) has a similar composition.

The wikipedia page says that 60% of the innermost region is He, not of the whole sun. I think your outer regions calculation is moot. The core isn't convective, so the He produced there shouldn't get to the outer regions. How much of the current mass in the core is He-3? The wikipedia article doesn't say the 60% is all He-4.

wlad has been suspended a week for repeated copyright violations, specifically copying discussions from elsewhere in order to critique them. No means no.

! Moderator Note Discussion related to purportedly disproving Darwin has been split http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85066-disproving-darwin/

Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU has been suspended banned for his recent blatant plagiarism and the subsequent antics which involved posting in ways that did not advance any useful discussion.

How would one show that it's representative? Otherwise it's simply, as you say, hypothetical. As in, a figment of your imagination. How about some real quotes? “Our schools cannot handle this influx, we don’t even know what all diseases they have” is from Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). That's rhetoric, not fact; the children are likely better-vaccinated than US kids. http://time.com/2991764/myth-diseased-immigrant/ Phil Gingrey (R-GA) wrote a letter to the CDC, and said, “Reports of illegal immigrants carrying deadly diseases such as swine flu, dengue fever, Ebola virus and tuberculosis are particularly concerning.” Ebola comes from Africa, not South or Central America, and Gingrey is a doctor, so he should know better. That's simply scare tactics. Not measured debate. Reasoned discussion can't include Fox News lying left and right. Reasoned discussion might include the House actually coming up with some kind of legislation, which it hasn't done. So, how about we deal with facts rather than fantasy?