swansont

Not. A billion 100 kg people jumping off of a 1m chair (or equivalent) is ~1012 joules. This converts to 0.24 kilotons, or about 1% of the Hiroshima bomb that did not destroy most of America, though it did flatten Hiroshima.

Still need a source; I don't find it reasonable that our excrement is all that different from any other mammal. I think human fecal matter gets broken down, and also can be used (and is/was by some human groups) for combustion and fertilizer.

I call BS, as it were, on this. Explain the existence of dung beetles.

But that's not the definition of supercooled. It is, however, descriptive of a (wait for it...) "glass transition." Yes, it is, and no, not really. But there are other threads already devoted to the topic. If people are interested, they should read those threads and post there.

No, I don't think so. We've already had threads on glass being a liquid — it's not.

Have you accounted for the infinite length contraction you'd have travelling at c?

That's roughly what is estimated for Francium.

Indeed, it is a strength of the system and not a weakness that all new ideas have to go through a trial by fire before they are accepted. It also needs to be understood that those proposing new theories that go through such peer-review and do get accepted very likely had a firm understanding of the existing theories to which they added, which is another common difference with the online discussion community.

A recent thread reminded me of this. A man goes searching for a wife, but is dismayed that he can't find a pure woman, an innocent virgin, to marry. He sets about to travel the countryside and find one. Upon arriving at a new village and meeting a fair young maiden, he would drop his pants and ask, "What's this?" The reply was always, "That's your willy." And he would go on to the next village, and grew more despondent with each passing day. No innocent women to be found anywhere. One day, however, he chanced upon a young lady, lowered his trousers and asked his question. "What's this?" "I have no idea," she replied. The man was overjoyed and declared his intention to marry her. He got permission from the father and the wedding followed soon after. On their wedding night, after they undressed, he asked his question again. "What's this?" "I have no idea," she again replied. "This is my willy," he informed her. "Don't be silly, " she exclaimed. "Willies are black and at least a foot long!"

I don't make the rules, so the "requirements" are just a suggestion to make discussions go more smoothly. No sense wasting time explaining it all yet again to everyone that comes down the pike. Some of the rude behavior I caution against will get you into serious trouble, and the rest is an attempt to educate people on how science works. However, for anyone who's fond of extrapolating based on little data (i.e. can't distinguish between correlation and causality), the posters whose actions inspired me to come up with the list were eventually banned.

If it's science, it not about opinions at all. It's about what you can support with evidence.

Oh, well now I'm convinced.

It's data mining. Numerology. Pick some number, and you can find something that fits it.

Coincidence. You picked two values that were about 108. There are a much larger set of relationships that are not. If your sacred number was 30, you would have noted that the moon is currently about 30 earth radii away from earth, and takes almost 30 days to revolve around the earth, and ignored these two "108" relationships. edit: distance is radii, not diameters

(A collection of some thoughts brought on by recent posts and posters. Some of these are touched upon in the FAQ and Pseudoscience section, and these sentiments can be found on other science fora) If you think you've toppled relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution or some other theory with your post, think again. Theories that have been around for a while have lots of evidence to back them up. It is far more likely that you have missed something. Here are some things to consider: You have to back your statements up with evidence. Anecdotes are not evidence. Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack. Calling the people in who challenge you "brainwashed" or "stupid" does not further your argument. Neither does throwing a tantrum. Published research (peer-reviewed) is more credible than the alternative. But peer-review is not perfect. When you have been shown to be wrong, acknowledge it. Just because some paper or web site agrees with you does not mean that you are right. You need evidence. Just because some paper comes to the same conclusion as you does not mean your hypotheses are the same. Provide references when you refer to the work of others. Make sure the work is relevant, and quotes are in the proper context. Disagreeing with you does not make someone "closed-minded." "Thinking outside the box" is not a substitute for verifiable experimental data. Mainstream science is mainstream because it works, not because of some conspiracy. If you think you have an alternative, you have to cover all the bases - not just one experiment (real or gedanken). One set of experimental results that nobody has been able to reproduce is insufficient. Respect is earned. People who are resident experts, mods and administrators have earned those titles. Be familiar with that which you are criticizing. Don't make up your own terminology, and know the language of the science. A theory is not a guess. If nothing will convince you your viewpoint is wrong, you aren't doing science. That's religion. All theories are of limited scope. Just because a theory does not address some point you want it to does not automatically mean it's wrong. Not understanding a concept, or discovering that it's counterintuitive, does not make it wrong. Nature is under no obligation to behave the way you want it to. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Science cares very little about your opinion, as it has little relevance to the subject. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to address criticism of your viewpoint.

(A collection of some thoughts brought on by recent posts and posters. Some of these are touched upon in the FAQ and Pseudoscience section, and these sentiments can be found on other science fora) If you think you've toppled relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution or some other theory with your post, think again. Theories that have been around for a while have lots of evidence to back them up. It is far more likely that you have missed something. Here are some things to consider: 1. You have to back your statements up with evidence. 2. Anecdotes are not evidence. 3. Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack. 4. Calling the people in who challenge you "brainwashed" or "stupid" does not further your argument. Neither does throwing a tantrum. 5. Published research (peer-reviewed) is more credible than the alternative. But peer-review is not perfect. 6. When you have been shown to be wrong, acknowledge it. 7. Just because some paper or web site agrees with you does not mean that you are right. You need evidence. 8. Just because some paper comes to the same conclusion as you does not mean your hypotheses are the same. 9. Provide references when you refer to the work of others. Make sure the work is relevant, and quotes are in the proper context. 10. Disagreeing with you does not make someone "close-minded." "Thinking outside the box" is not a substitute for verifiable experimental data. 11. Mainstream science is mainstream because it works, not because of some conspiracy. If you think you have an alternative, you have to cover all the bases - not just one experiment (real or gedanken). One set of experimental results that nobody has been able to reproduce is insufficient. 12. Respect is earned. People who are resident experts, mods and administrators have earned those titles. 13. Be familiar with that which you are criticizing. Don't make up your own terminology, and know the language of the science. A theory is not a guess. 14. If nothing will convince you your viewpoint is wrong, you aren't doing science. That's religion. 15. All theories are of limited scope. Just because a theory does not address some point you want it to does not automatically mean it's wrong. 16. Not understanding a concept, or discovering that it's counterintuitive, does not make it wrong. Nature is under no obligation to behave the way you want it to. 17. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Science cares very little about your opinion, as it has little relevance to the subject. 18. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to address criticism of your viewpoint.

Xmas cartoons

At which point the sergeant bellowed, "You don't call me sir! I know who my parents are!" (or "I work for a living!")

A woman was invited out for a night with the girls. She promised her husband that she would be home by midnight. Well, the hours passed and the margaritas went down way too easy. Around 3 A.M., a bit loaded, she headed for home. Just as she got in the door, the cuckoo clock in the hall started up and cuckooed 3 times. Quickly, realizing her husband would probably wake up, she cuckooed another 9 times. She was really proud of herself for coming up with such a quick-witted solution (even totally smashed), in order to escape a possible conflict with him. The next morning her husband asked her what time she got in and she told him "midnight." He didn't seem pissed off at all. "Whew!! Got away with that one!" she thought. Then he said, "We need a new cuckoo clock." When she asked him why, he said, "Well, last night our clock cuckooed 3 times, then said, "Oh shit," cuckooed 4 more times, cleared its throat, cuckooed another 3 times, giggled, cuckooed twice more, and then tripped over the coffee table and farted."

Taxiing down the tarmac, the jetliner abruptly stopped, turned around and returned to the gate. After an hour long wait, it finally took off. A concerned passenger asked the flight attendant, "What was the problem?" "The pilot was bothered by a noise he heard in the engine," she explained. "It took us a while to find a new pilot." --- A man is in a hotel lobby. He wants to ask the clerk a question. As he turns to go to the front desk, he accidentally bumps into a woman beside him and as he does, his elbow goes into her breast. They are both quite startled. The man turns to her and says, "Ma'am, if your heart is as soft as your breast, I know you'll forgive me." She replies, "if your penis is as hard as your elbow, I'm in room 1221." --- "What I've learned" I've learned that you cannot make someone love you. All you can do is stalk them and hope they panic and give in. I've learned that no matter how much I care, some people are just assholes. I've learned that it takes years to build up trust, and only suspicion, not proof, to destroy it. I've learned that you can get by on charm for about fifteen minutes. After that, you'd better have a big dick or huge tits. I've learned that you shouldn't compare yourself to others - they are more **cked up than you think. I've learned that you can keep puking long after you think you're finished. I've learned that we are responsible for what we do, unless we are celebrities. I've learned that regardless of how hot and steamy a relationship is at first,the passion fades, and there had better be a lot of money to take its place. I've learned that sometimes the people you expect to kick you when you're down will be the ones who do. I've learned that we don't have to ditch bad friends because their dysfunction makes us feel better about ourselves. I've learned that no matter how you try to protect your children, they will eventually get arrested and end up in the local paper. I've learned that the people you care most about in life are taken from you too soon and all the less important ones just never go away.