JaKiri

There's no information on the potential energy, you have to assume that it's irrelevent.

That is all that is required to make my point.

I'm still unsure what your point is.

It is possible that government agents creep in during the night and exchange the contents of my freezer for another set which are exactly identical.

Something being possible doesn't make it true.

I did and gave you a link. You are playing the parrot again. Are you that desperate?

I was going to make something up, add in large amounts of gibberish letters, change the colours of the text and the background to ugly and garish and then post it on my website in order to demonstrate why a single unsourced link on something doesn't make it so, but I can't think of anything sufficiently absurd for it to outdo your claims.

I am not Ayn Rand's mother.

That's good, I was worried there for a moment.

No guesswork. Fact 1= Enola Gay at 30,000 feet, Fact 2= so-called atom bomb detonated at 1826 feet above the ground, Fact 3= B-29 rocked violently twice, Fact 4= trees still standing and streets clear and underground sewers barely damaged and seismograms missing, Fact 5=no crater. Deny that.

I'm confused, you were the one who wsa supposed to be denying that?

I find it unusual that someone pretending to know so much about physics can't grasp elementary logic. All you do is play the selectively curious card and turn circles around that hoping the reader will interpret that as scientific wisdom. Where are your mathematical formulations, Einstein?

I find it interesting that you mention Einstein. If atom bombs don't exist, then the special theory of relativity is incorrect. If the special theory of relativity is incorrect, then why does all the evidence point to it being correct?

I can go into the evidence if you like, but the most obvious example would be when they sent an atomic clock on a plane round the earth, and found that it felt the effects of time dilation.

In a radial airborne detonation the shockwaves go in all directions. Except of course when you describe them.

I generally find that hot gas rises. I've seen hot air balloons and everything.

I don't write for the benefit of the magnitude dyslexics that are dead set against assimilating elementary logic. Get a tutor.

Since you claim to have written it before, it's not even new; just copy and paste.

I'd also appreciate it if you could explain what you mean by a "magnitude dyslexic". Is English your native language?

I recognize no such burdon. I expose the facts as I see them and that is the limit of my so-called burdon.

So you expose "facts", but are unable to prove them? I notice you are unable to correctly copy the spelling of the word "burden", are you one of those magnitude dyslexics I hear so much about?

So now you claim atom bombs are real because computers are real. That is amusing. How do you come to that conclusion?

If atom bombs cannot exist, then special relativity is wrong, which means that Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism are wrong, which means that the electronics in your computer wouldn't work.

I never denied the existance of computers. I sometimes hear other say that public schools can't be all that bad, after all, they put a man on the moon with that type of instruction, lol. Next you will claim that dinosaurs existed because they found bones.

Are you saying they found bones of things which didn't exist? That's a pretty good trick right there.

I also have the option of ignoring spam like that.

Now now, you're never going to win a Nobel Prize in theoretical conspiracies if you don't play nice.

You still have not provided evidence that a mushroom cloud grows out of an airborne radial explosion

Hot things rise. Cold things fall. Very hot thing near explosion means that lots of stuff rises, edges cool down and don't rise as much, looks like a mushroom. You don't need an atom bomb to make a mushroom cloud, they arise from sufficiently large amounts of traditional explosives as well.

and you have no explanation for plant growth everywhere in Hirosdhima after the bombings

I'm sorry, where? My magnitude dyslexia is playing up again.

and you don't care to know where the historic seismograms went

Oh, I do care, very much. I have my best man on the case.

and you provided no evidence to explain the absence of a shockwave in Hiroshima

There was a shockwave. You can tell because of all the buildings that have been knocked over, unlike, say, Dresden.

and you neglected to give an explanation why the city started rebuilding the very next day in spite of the massive radiation that should have been present.

Why would there be massive radiation? If the bomb is detonated at a couple of thousand feet, all the fallout blows away.

There'd only be fallout if there was a crater, because local fallout is caused by a mixture between the crater debris and the remnants of the bomb.

Oh sorry, that's consistent and must be therefore evidence of a new world order.

You are also totally oblivious to the fact that Tibbets was a Hollywood insider and you probably deny they had the means to show a fake mushroom cloud in the post bombing pictures of Hiroshima and you accuse ME of distracting, lol.

Why would the japanese fake mushroom cloud pictures? Were they "in" on the bombing of their own cities?

Are you a stand up comedian besides plying forums for atom bomb hoaxsters?

I am a comedy writer as it happens, yes. Only in my spare time though.

Lying has also been a SUCCESSFUL science over the years. Very profitable science.

I don't think you know what the word "science" means. If it would help you with this kind of problem, I know a good magnitude dyslexia specialist if you want me to give you his contact details.

I deny it's very existance and believe they will never build one. Why else would they have to fake it?

Why indeed? An insightful question!

Yes, that's right. Is that a banning offence at atombombhoaxmaintenance.com?

You aren't going to tell me how many people have a vested interest? That's not very interesting.

Your question shows without doubt that you don't know the first thing about the conditions required for the growth of a mushroom cloud.

Well, at least I know the difference between altitudes of 2,000 feet and 100,000 feet. Perhaps you have magnitude dyscalculia as well as magnitude dyslexia, fate hasn't treated you kindly I'm afraid.

You sound delirious. Are you ok?

I often confuse hilarity with delerium myself, it goes away after a while.

Is that what you are saying happened? That they faked the altitude and the so-called atomic blast was a ground detonation?

What?

The official story of the atom bomb is no defense. It is a fable riddled with contradictions and omissions and outright lies. My only burdon is providing the reader with the data I have examined and the conclusions this has led me to so they may do their own research and reach their own conclusions.

What?

How do you know what is really going on in the core of a so-called nuclear reactor, have you taken one apart and examined the pieces on your kitchen table. If you have not themn you are merely speculating.

What?

That is a lie. I get the distinct feeling you are setting me up for banishment. I have responded adequately to all questions whether they satify your inability to grasp elementary logic or not.

What?

The only reason you refuse to prove me wrong is because you are hiding behind your burdon of proof fallacy.

What?

Where is your evidence that it would not make a crater?

 

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/nukeffct/enw77b1.html

What?

What kind of idiots would spend billions designing a bomb they will blow up so high in the sky nobody will notice? I think your assumption that the so-called atom bomb was detonated at 4 times the height reported for decades is rediculous. Proof that the web is also full of disinfo. They did not build their so-called atom bomb just to give the Enola Gay a few jolts you know.

What?

I made many other points. That you choose to ignore them or consider them trivial is your problem not mine.

 

Are you going to prove me wrong or rant about all day?

 

What have you contributed to this thread besides gratuitous comments and trivial marginalizations. You have done nothing to defend that pack of lies they call an official story of the so-called atom bomb.

 

I don't owe you nothing. If you are not satified with my explanations that is fine and you can move on and let some other genuis pick up the slack.

What?

Consider what forms of energy are present in the system (hint: it's to do with what happens to the sand when it's on the conveyor).

Power is the rate of change of energy, so you look at how much the energy is changing each second, and you get your answer.

It does demonstrate that the Americans had the means at their disposal to irradiate the survivors of the incendiary raid with x-rays they could later describe as the effects of so-called atomic bomb radioactive fallout. Doesn't get simpler then that.

I don't think anyone doubted they had the means.

The quote indicates the means to simulate atomic radioactive fallout with x-ray bombardment. That is not misdirection. As I was saying, you appear to be on a fishing expedition. You are flogging a dead horse when you claim misdirection.

So you can't source the claim?

The atom bomb hoax is rife with scientific method and formula yet it is a hoax.

Can't argue with logic like that. Ever look into the works of Ayn Rand? A=A sounds right up your street.

No I did not.

In my estimation a blast that intense would leave a massive crater at 2000 feet from the detonation if it can rock a huge aircraft at 30,000 feet.

Yes you did. Unless you meant that you guessed that this was the case, in which case please go away and demonstrate it.

I find amusement in your resistance to basic mathematics, as you implored someone earlier in the day to "do the math chum".

That is because my so-called calculations are a figment of your imagination. Where are your calculations to prove that a blast over a city at 2000 feet that rocks a B-29 violently at 30,000 feet will not crush everything below it and leave a massive crater? I have not seen your so-called evidence yet.

Turbulance can be caused by a pressure wave. A pressure wave can be caused by heat, which disproportionately moves upwards due to the difference in density between the super-heated gases and the surrounding air (which coincidentally forms a mushroom cloud). The ground need not be affected.

Take another look and you will see there is an altitude scale and representative values. Probably not the mind-boggling physics math you are expecting but it is very clear in it's simplicity. Why should I bog myself down with complex math when a simple elementary formula is good enough to make my point?

Could you please point out the formula, for those of us who can't immediately discern it?

Where's your simple model to prove the contrary? You ask a lot but provide very little. Why don't you show us how to muddle an issue with convoluted formulas a lay person won't understand?

You were the one who said it was impossible. The burden of proof is upon you.

Furthermore, if you think that mathematics is an exercise in muddling the issue why are you able to use a computer right now?

You are starting to sound like a parrot by repeating yourself and showing us that you can not assimilate elementary logic without bogging yourself down in myrad formulas and scientific wishwash.

Unfortunately, if you don't answer the questions I present I have little option but to repeat them. Why are you trying to distract from something which, if you have evidence, should be easy to demonstrate?

You call what your rants a scientific method, lol?

No, I call the process by which hypotheses are arrived at and tested by empirical methods using repeatable experiments the scientific method, lol. It's been quite successful over the years, too.

That's rich. Like I said, some people will believe a pack of lies and defend them with confident ardor instead of facing the fact that they have been lied to massively about the atom bomb.

When you say "lied to massively about the atom bomb", do you mean that it was used at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or that it exists?

Do you have the slightest idea how many people have a vested interest in maintaining that hoax? Do you have any idea what is at stake for those people if the truth becomes widely accepted?

None whatsoever.

The ones you are desperately trying to bury under a pile of semantic hogwash.

Could you quote them please? Humour me.

Here's something I missed earlier:

Most people have seen airborne detonations at fireworks displays and none saw a mushroom cloud (proportionally speaking of course) yet everyone buys the mushroom cloud at Hiroshima story

This is hilarious.

The fact is that the Americans were irradiating people with x-rays and documenting the subsequent illness as so-called atom bomb fallout illness. What part of that don't you get? The quote indicates that the Americans had the equipment and the means at their disposal to irradiate people with x-rays and describe their illness as radioactivity-induced. People also got sick and died from exposure to the direct effects of a raging firestorm and exposure to the oil-laden black rain that fell everywhere following that massive raid.

A quote demonstrates nothing. Even assuming the event took place, that demonstrates nothing either.

You have asked us to cast off the lies of the hoaxers, but if you cannot see that an unsourced and, by context, misleading or downright inaccurate quote is exactly the kind of misdirection you are professing to be working against then I don't know what to say.

Why should we believe you over the conspiracy?

Obviously you are suffering from magnitude dyslexia. You are the one saying I need physics math to prove the obvious. If a blast can rock a b-29 violently at 30,000 feet above it what do you think will be the effect felt by those directly below it? I wish you would stop being silly about that.

Things that are obvious are not always true. It's the reason why the scientific method rests upon experimentation rather than guesswork. You said you calculated it. Why are you so resistant to supplying us with that calculation?

It can also be demonstrated quite clealy with the elementary math I provided in my graphic.

There is no maths in your graphic.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that a detonation at 2000 feet from the ground that can rock a B-29 violently twice at 30,000 feet has to be uttery devastating and leave a massive crater directly under it. How hard can that be to fathom I ask? Do you need to see the simple graphic again?

What I'd like is a mathematical demonstration. If it's so obvious, it should be simple; what physical processes are you using to demonstrate this? How have you factored in the form that a nuclear explosion would take? What about the asymmetry of what can affect a plane and what is required to blast a hole in the ground?

Good for you.

Thank you.

For some people there will never be enough evidence to prove they have been lied to massively. Especially to those that should have known better and not fallen for those shameless lies put forth by the atom bomb hoaxsters.

Perhaps this is true. However, as you haven't presented any evidence or argument the question of what amount would be found convincing is moot, unless that amount is zero.

Why do you ask if you have already made up your mind that I don't have enough education to address the issue adequately. A person must be seriously deluded to think that one needs a masters in physics to see the multitudes of contradictions, ommissions and outright lies in the atom bomb stories.

If I have made up my mind, it's because you have not presented anything to analyse. An unsourced quote, an appeal to common sense and flat statements of a conspiracy are not a persuasive argument. You came to a science forum to put forward your views, why are you getting angry that scientific standards of evidence are being applied to your hypothesis?

No you are not, you are fishing for something to poke redicule and contempt at. A serious resercher would have already grasped the most elementary points of my debunks. Assimilate those and we might be able to move on to some tougher stuff.

What debunks?

Then you have nothing to worry about from the proposed bill.

"To permit an individual to be treated by a health care practitioner with any method of medical treatment such individual requests"

Wonderful!

dietary supplements are vitamins, not homopathic remedies (in the specific cases Paul is talking about).

None of the things specifically mentioned in that article are vitamins. You may also want to look on his campaign site, where he specifically supports "alternative medicine" as medical treatment.

If there is sufficient evidence that these things are beneficial, for what purpose would the FDA control the market against their advertisement? And note the key phrase of "sufficient evidence."

There is not sufficient evidence for them being beneficial.

I knew something was amiss with the quote ""I was taken to an area near Mt. Hiji where American doctors from a research institution known as ABCC tested me over and over. I was X-rayed repeatedly in the chest, and from the front and back of my abdomen. I lost count of the actual number. Then I started to bleed about 8 o'clock that night, and the bleeding did not stop until 8 o'clock the next morning. I had miscarried." (From the screenplay of the documentary film directed by Mori Zenkichi, "For The International Community: A Documentary on Korean A-Bomb Victims")". I've just remembered what it was.

The ABCC wasn't founded until 1948. Is there a webpage or resource, other than http://www.jca.apc.org/~izm/sadakoeiyaku.html , that has this quote, preferrably with a timeline or at least some kind of indication of when the events took place?

Could it be that you are suffering from the selective curiosity syndrome? I came to this forum to present these facts to educated people and all I see are evasive tactics and focus on irrelevancy.

You claimed to have calculated that the amount of force required to buffet an airplane at 30,000 feet would have created a massive crator at ground zero. I merely asked to see your justification for it.

Surely if you're trying to convince us, then presenting your evidence should be the first step? It would be the crux of my argument because it's something that cannot be argued qualitatively.

Why is that? The experts said nothing would grow in Hiroshima for 70 years and that was not true.

Sources?

Most people have seen airborne detonations at fireworks displays and none saw a mushroom cloud (proportionally speaking of course) yet everyone buys the mushroom cloud at Hiroshima story.

I personally buy it because it was photographed.

You have a lot of nerve calling this a science forum when you can't address the most elementary issues in physics.

You haven't actually made any statements that can be addressed yet.

Where do you stand on the issue of nuclear power and radioactivity in general? I presume you don't have an education in the area, as you seemed amazed that radiation, in the form of x-rays, could produce radiation poisoning.

That's not a criticism, I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

Ron Paul on the FDA: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul288.html

Dietry supplements aren't banned, they are merely banned from being advertised on the back of medical claims. Which is not surprising, because we're talking about things like homeopathy which have no medical benefits. Colloidal silver for all!

Realistically, he would just change so that consumers make more informed decisions about their health care.

No, he wants to make it impossible for consumers to make informed decisions about health care. Supporting alternative medicine against the big bad FDA is not consistent with wanting people to make rational, informed decisions.

From your words, it seems like you don't think market forces could control the business, even if we got rid of the corruption in government. Why not?

Market forces can't be relied upon for the safety of the population. The Ford Pinto is probably the most famous examples, although there are many others.

From: http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:brCkYWwD9N0J:www.icjonline.com/eqtips/IITK-BMTPC-EQTip03.pdf+%22hiroshima+earthquakes%22&hl=en

 

"The energy released by a M6.3 earthquake is equivalent to that released by the 1945 Atom Bomb dropped on Hiroshima!!"

That's not what I asked for, and is irrelevent. You could express the energy released in terms of bicep curls or making cups of tea.

That so-called radiation sickness can be simulated with x-rays, what else?

As x-rays are a form of ionising radiation, that's not really surprising. It doesn't prove that the x-rays caused the effects observed, and it's anecdotal evidence in any case.

Did you know that jellied petrol incediaries can cause cancers and even kill those exposed to it and the black rain it produces when vaporized in massive firestorms?

Did you know that cremation can cause cancers and even kill those exposed to the smoke from it?

Worked for me. I am not resposible for maintaining that site but I did export the content to THIS webpage. You can read it there if you like.

Thank you.

Believe it or provide evidence to refute it. That's how discussions work.

Actually, the burden of proof is upon you.

Hiroshima's Post-conflict Reconstruction

Not Found

The requested URL /~hipec/conference/001.pdf. was not found on this server.

The little I know about primes is that there is no any 'Systematic Formula' for obtaining prime numbers in either ascending or descending order.And the whole world is in a delima as wheter there is a limit to primes or NOT.That is whetther there is a HIGHEST PRIME NUMBER.

I have Good, Better and Best formulae for generating Prime Numbers systematically.

TRY THE GOOD ONE:

P=7d-4

Where: P=prime number(Needed)

d=odd number(Chosen)

Example:

At d=5, it means;

P=7(5)-4=35-4=31

there are a few exceptions for the Good formula.

Questions and contributions are welcome

What exactly is this supposed to do?

Don't forget, this is reported as a blast of sufficient intensity to rock a B-29 at 30,000 feet in the air. In my estimation a blast that intense would leave a massive crater at 2000 feet from the detonation if it can rock a huge aircraft at 30,000 feet.

Lets see the mathematics behind your estimation please.

"I was taken to an area near Mt. Hiji where American doctors from a research institution known as ABCC tested me over and over. I was X-rayed repeatedly in the chest, and from the front and back of my abdomen. I lost count of the actual number. Then I started to bleed about 8 o'clock that night, and the bleeding did not stop until 8 o'clock the next morning. I had miscarried." (From the screenplay of the documentary film directed by Mori Zenkichi, "For The International Community: A Documentary on Korean A-Bomb Victims")

What's this supposed to prove, exactly?

Hiroshima's Post-conflict Reconstruction

Not Found

The requested URL /~hipec/conference/001.pdf. was not found on this server.

For the people whose health insurance works, I have to disagree with you on that one. I point to waiting times as a big benefit to the US system.

The advantages of waiting times in the United States compared to other countries is difficult to judge because of the lack of data collection. It's generally thought to be better on elective surgery, but in general the results are mixed, especially if you compare it against European countries rather than against Canada, who appear to have disproportionately long wait times in general.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=245178

is a fairly representative piece. Interestingly enough this link suggests that preventative health care is of a high standard in the US, something that is worth further investigation.

It's the same bureaucracy that disses the benefits of medicinal marijuana.

I wondered when drugs would come up.

The FDA is not perfect, the FDA is not close to perfect. However, it's a lot better than nothing and the problems have generally come from either business or political interference, with the medicinal value of cannabis almost certainly being an example of the latter.

How is this different than how statistics usually work?

In politics, it's not, unfortunately.

If you don't see how "taking an estimate of the number of deaths "caused" by the FDA's lengthy drug approval process, multiplying that by the "value" of a human life and then dividing that by the median estimated income to avoid one death" is an abuse of statistics I don't know what to say.

Would you care to demonstrate that the basic economic principles do not apply to health care?

What mechanisms would be in place to stop abuse by companies if you removed the FDA?

Yes. Jefferson also agreed with state power. This decision is upon recognition that while you see it as an infringement on personal rights, someone else sees it as preventing murder. Rather than force the hand of a major minority at the federal level, Dr. Paul seems to respect your local government - your state government - and prefers it be settled there.

 

A consistent position for a proponent of federation over centralized government. Your argument seems to imply that every referral to state power is a dismissal of personal liberty.

Every referral to state power over an issue of personal liberty which is deliberately designed to sidestep the checks and balances that are in place to defend personal liberty is a dismissal of personal liberty, yes.

What the christian right believe abortion to be isn't an issue. Some people cry that meat is murder, should meat eating be outlawed if you happened to find an arbitrary geographic collection of people that contained a majority that believed that way? What about religion - many atheists claim that religion itself is evil, should we permit religion to be banned?

The point of personal liberty is to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. There's no value in the concept of it if it isn't defended when others disapprove, just like there's no value in freedom of speech, if speech is only free when you say things the majority wants to hear.

Governments of any size should have no rights to judge or restrict on what people do as individuals, only when it affects the group.

Yes, the founding fathers were quite religious, but did not want to see the government establish and endorse any particular religion.

That's the opposite of what Paul said, though - "Rigid seperation of church and state can't have been intended by the founding fathers as they were religious" is the only sensible interpretation of what he wrote, unless we want to redefine phrases like "on the contrary".

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

I can't find the text of the bill... the library on congress said it hasn't received it yet.

It has, it was from the 106th Congress (sorry, I should have mentioned that).

SEC. 5. FUNDING.

 

(a) AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS- There is authorized to be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund an amount not to exceed $30,000 to pay for the cost of the medals authorized by this Act.

 

(b) PROCEEDS OF SALE- Amounts received from the sale of duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.

What is the US Mint Public Enterprise Fund? It sounds like any source of funds that has the word "public" in it winds up costing the taxpayers at some point or another. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00005136----000-.html

It could be that the companies being accused of furthering genocide have not been convicted in a court of law. By what criteria are we judging these companies?

Paul's remarks don't touch upon this at all.

Here's where it comes from - the 169 billion dollar hidden tax.

Have you actually read that? Have you read the things it's sourced from? Do you not see that the methodology that they use is disingenious at best?

Lies, damn lies and statistics; libertarian think tank research supports libertarian think tank ideals using dodgy arguments and statistics¹ pulled from libertarian think tank research which supports libertarian think tank ideals. It's incestuous nonsense.

The current american system is terrible, and drastically inferior to the socialised healthcare models that you find around the world in both performance and efficiency. However, if it's a choice between the current system and a free market, FDA-less, one then I'd go for the inefficient white elephant which stops the selling of radium as a miracle cure every time.

¹"Moreover, 4,000 more Americans die every year from costs associated with health services regulation (22,000) than from lack of health insurance (18,000)." is a pretty strong statement, wouldn't you agree? Do you really think that the strength of the statement is justified given that it was arrived at by dividing the "cost" of the health regulation system, found by adding together lots of bogus numbers, by "The median estimated income to avoid one death"? I really hope you do not.

I've always found it good too, but I'm a white middle class suburban guy

I'm English, not American. The private sector involvement I'm talking about is the nonsense of public-private partnerships.

An unregulated market can be dangerous, but in terms of health care, it would be healthy to free the market up, and get the insurance and pharmaceuticals out of government. If there was truly a free market, competition would keep prices low and services high.

No, it wouldn't. Bodies piling up in the streets.

It's not a good argument for universal health care... because a system that is more expensive, and less effective is simply not a good system.

The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any socialised health care system I could name, with at best similar results. It also disproportionately encourages preventative care.

and standard convention says it's group VIIA. i have only ever seen 1 paper deviate from that convention.

I use constants of 57 and 1/114 pi when doing fourier analysis and synthesis AND THAT'S THE WAY I LIKES IT

Group SEVENTEEN?

 

No, the Halogens are Group Seven.

That's a matter of convention.

The question to ask is whether the elements, when bonding, donate or receive electrons. The earlier halogens require more energy to lose an electron, but also give out more than the later halogens when they receive one - which is how they bond.

By and large, I've found the healthcare in this country to be fairly good, although due to the best efforts of the governments of recent times it is deteriorating. Largely because they involve the private sector, as it happens.

It could be dumb, but that's not how the health insurance care works. Preventative care would be cheaper than more expensive care later on, but using loopholes to deny coverage is cheaper still.

 

If we had a free market system

An unregulated market (especially if you take something like the FDA out of the equation) just creates further problems. Market corrections only come about when you get a sufficient pile of bodies.

Socializing medicine doesn't keep prices in check either, it just defers the cost of payment to a large group of people. While that may be a more effective method of treatment, it still winds up costing more for everyone.

If this were true it would be an argument for socialised medicine, but that doesn't really matter because I don't think it is true.

If one wants an easy example to demonstrate that speed is not conserved, consider a completely inelastic collision. With the target at rest, the final speed is always less than the incoming particle's speed.

If you want a practical demonstration, get three balls of descending size (lets say one of those small, bouncy footballs, a tennis ball and a table tennis ball), put one on top of the other so that you have this:

Now drop them from a height of, say, 50cm.

When they hit the ground and bounce back up again, the smallest ball will fly off about 20m into the air or more

(Who says you don't learn things from the pseudoscience forum)

Yet I now know better. But I would think it wise for scientists to use words that are most similar to their normal meaning. Perhaps Evolution should be called "Genetic Change" or some such.

This is horrific. Science uses a word which is misunderstood or misused by the popular consciousness and so science should change its definition? Should science not use the words "force", "speed", "light", or any of the other words which have strict scientific definitions but vague popular ones?

It's a matter of politeness to come into an argument on a science forum having at least attempted to investigate the evidence and thought on what you are trying to discuss. I admit this is not always possible on every topic, but given that information on evolution is so widespread and given the fact that you defended your ignorance in a rather bonkers way makes you a bit of a jackass.

Obviously, the "price" of our big brains is easily paid back hundreds of times with the advantages it gives us to produce food, defend against predators, work together in very large groups (up to nations), make tools, and so on.

Obvious or not does not make things true. It was obvious that heavy things fell faster than light things. What matters is the evidence you use to support your claims.

Although in this case, that's not the main problem. For a trait to become fixed in a population needs it to be advantageous, or at least not significantly deleterious, over a long period of time. It should not be that difficult to think of some examples where the greater developmental time and energy requirements of a bigger brain would cause those with it to be less successful members of society. Any animal which uses weight of numbers as a survival strategy for its juvenile forms would be a good start.

the only things your really "feel" are mass and if you like charge, everything else is pretty much abstraction

I'm pretty sure I can "feel" an acceleration, and "if you like charge" is a pretty strange characterisation of the whole gamut of forces.

Lets take a little trip down Special Relativity road, shall we?

The first thing to do is to note that SR relies on two basic principles: that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant for all observers, and that physical laws are the same in all intertial frames¹. These are well supported².

What do these things mean? Well, from these we get certain relationships. We get the things called the Lorenz Transforms, which state that the mass of an object that you observe moving relative to you is increased depending on the amount by which it is moving, proportional to the gamma factor³, a factor that is 1 when the object is at rest relative to you⁴ and approaches infinity as the relative speed of the object approaches the speed of light, c. Similarly, the rate at which you observe time passing for the object and the length of the object in the direction of motion are dependent on 1/gamma, a factor which is 1 at relative rest and 0 as the relative speed of the object appraoches c.

Now what does this mean? Well, it means that you have to take relative velocity into account when determining the mass and decay rate of particles we find in particle accelerators as they're moving a sizeable fraction of the speed of light. With GR⁵, it produces things like the twin paradox, it means we have to take account of time dilation if we want to measure our position by GPS satellites and predicts that if you fly an atomic clock around the world a few times it'll show a different time on it than one which was sitting where it started.

All of these things, and many more, we have observed to be true in line with the predictions of SR, as best we can measure.

So what does this mean?

Well, for one it means that your statement in the O/P that "mass is conserved" is incorrect. Have something accelerate, and the total mass you can measure changes due to the Lorenz transform!

For another thing, it means that particles that travel at the speed of light must have zero rest mass, otherwise their mass when travelling at c (which they must travel at by definition) would be infinite.

What else does it mean? We've already seen the famous equation E=mc^2 in this thread, and it's more correct brother E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4⁶. It is remarkable that you use the first of these equations in an argument which also uses conversation of mass, as E=mc^2 is an equation which describes the equivilence between rest mass and energy, which kind of puts the nix on mass conservation.⁷

It is also remarkable that you ignore the full equation. If you like, you can derive it yourself from E = gamma*mc^2 and p = gamma*mv.

If, as you state, you cannot have massless particles I think it is only polite if you provide new versions of Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Maxwell's Equations, and all the other things that suggest or require that you can have them, that fit with this statement. An explanation of why all reproduceable experimental evidence⁸ on the topic suggests that massless particles can exist and yet they somehow do not would also be helpful.

¹In fact only the latter of these is required. You can derive that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant from all observers from the first principle and from Maxwell's Equations.

²Michaelson-Morely is an obvious experiment to mention.

³The reciprocal of the square root of the relative speed squared divided by the speed of light squared, and subtracted from 1. 1/(SQRT 1-(v^2/c^2))

⁴This is the origin of the concept of the rest mass, which we shall come back to later.

⁵You need General Relativity to deal with acceleration/gravity.

⁶An interesting sidepoint is that whilst both E and p (momentum) are observer dependent, the right hand side is observer independent as it depends on rest mass, m. Using Taylor expansions, you can also derive the classical definitions of kinetic energy and momentum from this and its related equations.

⁷If mass is conserved, nuclear power (of any sort) doesn't work, because nuclear power is from things with a mass m combining (or splitting apart) to form a body of particles of mass less than m, with the resulting energy being given off in the order E=mc^2. I have to admit that I cannot see the sun at this precise moment as it's a cloudy day in Cambridge, but I'm pretty sure it's still there.

⁸With accuracies of the order of 10^-20, which is pretty hefty as these things go.

Which means something like: it would take a really long time to think about anything by then (or well before then probably), or store up the required energy to do it...

How are we supposed to store energy in a way which doesn't obey the second law?