granpa

you left out conservation of momentum and energy

And this concerns me how?

I've given you the pointers that you need. Now you must do your own homework.

Did science suddenly develop the ability to prove a negative while I was away?

once again you aren't reading what I wrote. I said that the neutrino consists of a positive and a negative gravitational charge and therefore has zero net gravitational charge. It only has a gravitational field within itself. (I doubt it would matter anyway since neutrinos are emitted with so much energy) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is fully accounted for in the Bohr model. You should know that. I never said anything about negative energy or negative inertial mass.I only talked about negative active gravitational mass (which I prefer to call gravitational charge)

I guess you missed this part

The neutron is a subatomic particle with no net electric charge and a mass slightly larger than that of a proton. Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a half-life of 611.0±1.0 s (about 10 minutes, 11 seconds). A neutron spontaneously breaks down into a proton, an electron, and an electron-antineutrino. The radius of an electron in the ground state of a hydrogen atom is known as the Bohr radius and is equal to 0.529 angstroms. This is tens of thousands of times larger than the nucleus. It is often said, therefore, that the electron is too big to fit inside a neutron. But that is only true if the only force binding the electron inside the neutron is electromagnetism. If a much stronger force were attracting it then it would indeed fit inside the neutron. The only force strong enough to do that is the strong nuclear force. Unlike all the other forces the strong_force actually increases with (and is proportional to) distance from the center. (All other forces decrease rapidly with distance) Gamma rays emitted from nuclei typically have energies up to around 10 million electron volts. (2.4 × 10^21 Hz) Neutrinos have only one millionth of the mass of an electron yet they have the same amount of angular momentum. This suggests that they might be rotating fast enough to produce a very powerful and energetic gravito-magnetic field. Strangely, particles with gravito-magnetic fields would spontaneously align opposite to one another thereby canceling out each other's fields. (Exactly the opposite of what particles with magnetic fields do) Might this not explain some of the counterintuitive quantum mechanical behaviors that are seen in atoms?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_pair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_pair Just as a neutron can be thought of as a spinning proton plus a spinning electron (albeit a surprisingly small one) with no net electric field yet still having a net magnetic field so a neutrino would consist of a spinning negative gravitational charge and a spinning positive gravitational charge with no net gravitational charge yet still having a net gravito-magnetic field. If so then there should be quite a strong gravitational field within the neutrino. Perhaps this is the source of the van der Waals force Gravito-electromagnetism is fascinating but the analogy with electromagnetism does break down in one crucial aspect. The gravitational field is not so much a field of "force" as it is a field of "acceleration". Everything within that field accelerates at the same rate regardless of its inertial or active gravitational mass.  neutron = proton+electron+neutrino Neutino = positive active gravitational mass + negative active gravitational mass + ? if we could split the neutrino into its constituent parts then maybe we could use those to create an anti-gravitational effect.  (And possibly a propulsion system too) (It might not be necessary to completely separate the two parts. A simple dipole field might be sufficient) Perhaps tau neutrino = electron neutrino + muon neutrino

not sure what you are saying. I can spend hours using intuition to study a situation Edit: Sounds like your decision making process revolves around time. Maybe your decision making process should revolve around making the best decision. Just saying

that would be an example of not maintaining proper objectivity when using intuition. you see what you want to see and if you truly want to see what the facts say when they are allowed to speak for themselves then you will indeed see that too. even with proper objectively intuition cant tell you whether something is true or not. It can only tell you whether it is a reasonable possibility

pattern recognition is inductive reasoning

so for you science is about reaching consensus. I always thought science was about logic and reason

Ivtuition can't tell you whether a given idea is true or not, but if used properly, it does tell you whether that idea is reasonable or not. how is "given the information I have available this is a reasonable possibility" not valid

whats irrational about inductive reasoning?

you seem completely convinced that intuition is somehow inherently irrational. That is the opposite of the point that I am making. If it is used properly and interpreted correctly intuition is entirely rational

inductive reasoning is a valid form of logic. You just have to be careful to maintain proper objectivity

(debilitating) fear of heights = fear of pain the type of fear of heights that is so bad that you become completely paralyzed and incapable of even moving can't be overcome until you first overcome your fear of pain. Suppose that A fears pain and B doesnt fear pain it isn't that A & B feel the same thing and one fears it and the other doesnt. A & B feel completely different sensations A feels scary pain and B feels nonscary pain the difference is not one of intensity. they are two fundamentally different sensations. scary pain is completely debilitating. if I am far enough above the ground then I am completely paralyzed with fear furthermore fear of pain seems to be unique to humans. Apes obviously aren't afraid of heights.

There is nothing magical about intuition. Intuition is simply the brain using inductive reasoning and massive parallel processing to determine the reasonableness (plausibility) of certain possibilities. You suspend your disbelief long enough to get a "feel" for how well the idea "fits" with everything else you know. Does it conflict with other things you know? Does it require that you make many other assumptions? Or would it, in fact, explain things that would otherwise be unexplained? Intuition can't tell you whether a given idea is true or not, but if used properly, it does tell you whether that idea is reasonable or not. Occam's razor states that the most reasonable possibility tends to be the correct one. It really is as they say: "you see what you want to see". And if you truly want to see what the facts say when they are allowed to speak for themselves then you will indeed see that too. For some people, however, intuition is simply a cudgel to bash people over the head with to force them to believe what they believe. These people are not using intuition properly.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator divides people into extroverts and introverts. Extroverts are mainly concerned with outward appearance while introverts are more concerned with the underlying reality. Introverts worry that crowds will judge them by their appearance and the strain of "keeping up appearances" leaves them feeling drained. Extroverts, on the other hand, not only aren't drained of energy but are, in fact, energized by crowds. It is not at all true that introverts are loners. Introverts are very sociable people. Introverts just don't like mindless, thoughtless, mobs of people judging them by their appearance.

the difference between poo and s*** is that we see the latter as being all-bad. this is an example of all or nothing thinking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology) A racial slur like n**** is also an example of seeing another person as being all-bad. It is thankfully no longer considered acceptable to use the N word but it is still acceptable to use other similar words like nerd or geek. when a religious person sees some action as a sin they are seeing that action as being all-bad. no thing and no body is all bad or all good.

Water is referred to as the “universal solvent” because it can dissolve more substances and in greater quantity than any other solvent yet, paradoxically, 99.9% of the earth is insoluble in water. Rocks dont dissolve in water because a rock (even a large rock) is a single immense (covalently bonded) molecule and therefore cannot dissolve. Or, if not a single molecule, then it is a collection of long polymer-like molecules (chain silicates/Geopolymers). This is what makes lava amorphous. Chem 421 - Crystalline and Amorphous Polymers If they are allowed to cool slowly, these chains (chain silicates) can fold up into regular crystal structures but they are still long chains of covalently bonded atoms. On the other hand, if it cools too quickly then the result is an amorphous glass, like obsidian MINERALS

remember that the lenghth of an object is the distance from the head to the tail at one simultaneous moment if two observers disagree about what events are simultaneous then they will disagree about the length of objects

all observers are describing the same reality. The only thing that changes are the labels we put on things. Labels like 10:45 pm or 100 meters

you say that if something can't be proven to be real then it should not be accepted as true. He is simply pointing out that your statement itself cannot be proven to be true yet you seem to accept it as a fact I would've thought that "reality exists and is independent of those observing it" would be a basic axiom of science (if not THE basic axiom)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3880