DescentBB

What exactly am I disputing and on what grounds? I'm a lover of real science but I'm also a big believer in the integrity of the process. Certain guidelines are set forth and when they are exceeded, the test results become unreliable. I'm using the scientific process to develop my theory, but again instead of allowing uncomfortable truths enter your thought process, you instead tell me how i should just accept someone else's imaginations which are based on certain laws, one of them being:

Does the magnetosphere keep the ozone layer from being stripped away from particle bombardment?
Yes or no?
True or False?

WHY, why, will no one just answer this simplest of questions. The only thing we have disagreed on is if radio-metric dating is valid, nothing else is disputed.

You're not using the scientific process because the scientific process isn't typing up a half-thought idea and then demanding that everyone spend pages of text proving it wrong until you're (never) satisfied. The scientific process is that you first provide a body of overwhelming empirical evidence for why your idea is right. This is something that happens first and should have happened seven pages ago. Flesh it out so profusely that it leaves no room for doubt. It also helps to have breadth knowledge in whatever field you're talking about so that you know when you've come up with a good idea or to know when it's been refuted. This isn't unreasonable to ask for. These topics are complicated enough that they require more than some googling around on the Internet to grok. They might even be complicated enough that your ideas have already been refuted but that you can't realize it without an unreasonable amount of effort on the DBB's part, don't you think?

Are we gonna start debating the principals of scientific discovery now?

The tails of comets prove that sub-atomic particles never lose their velocity.

You can't conclusively prove that sub-atomic particles existed in the atmosphere before nuclear testing. Why? There is no prior data.

flip wrote:Are we gonna start debating the principals of scientific discovery now?

They're also good principles for effectively arguing a point to people in any topic. They're also not up for debate.

Then can we debate these:

The tails of comets prove that sub-atomic particles never lose their velocity.
Does the magnetosphere keep the ozone layer from being stripped away from sub-atomic particle bombardment?

Jeff, settle down man. As the 2 questions above show, we are simply debating these 2 facts and the results that happen on a sub-atomic scale. It's supposed to be fun and enlightening, don't participate if you don't have the stomach for it.

Nuclear Fission: In nuclear fission, the nuclei of atoms are split, causing energy to be released. The atomic bomb and nuclear reactors work by fission. The element uranium is the main fuel used to undergo nuclear fission to produce energy since it has many favorable properties. Uranium nuclei can be easily split by shooting neutrons at them. Also, once a uranium nucleus is split, multiple neutrons are released which are used to split other uranium nuclei. This phenomenon is known as a chain reaction.

essentially all nuclear fission occurs as a "nuclear reaction" — a bombardment-driven process that results from the collision of two subatomic particles. In nuclear reactions, a subatomic particle collides with an atomic nucleus and causes changes to it. Nuclear reactions are thus driven by the mechanics of bombardment

Nuclear fissions in fissile fuels are the result of the nuclear excitation energy produced when a fissile nucleus captures a neutron. This energy, resulting from the neutron capture, is a result of the attractive nuclear force acting between the neutron and nucleus. It is enough to deform the nucleus into a double-lobed "drop," to the point that nuclear fragments exceed the distances at which the nuclear force can hold two groups of charged nucleons together, and when this happens, the two fragments complete their separation and then are driven further apart by their mutually repulsive charges, in a process which becomes irreversible with greater and greater distance.

The pieces of altered matter, called strangeletes, would destroy any ordinary matter they came in contact with, eventually annihilating the entire planet. Although most scientists assure that none of the particle accelerators being used at the present are strong enough to bring about these events they are unsure of the abilities of the newest accelerator being built.

A neutrino (English pronunciation: /njuːˈtriːnoʊ/, Italian pronunciation: [neuˈtriːno]) is an electrically neutral, weakly interacting elementary subatomic particle[1] with a half-integer spin, chirality and a disputed but small non-zero mass. It is able to pass through ordinary matter almost unaffected.

Based on all those assertions, I want every nuclear reaction device also to be magnetically shielded.

flip wrote:Then can we debate these:

The tails of comets prove that sub-atomic particles never lose their velocity.
Does the magnetosphere keep the ozone layer from being stripped away from sub-atomic particle bombardment?

The magnetosphere keeps the atmosphere from being blown away by solar winds.

no, the tails of comets don't prove that; the tails of comets are NOT composed of sub-atomic particles.

if we could figure out magnetic shielding, we would already have fusion power.

Debate places the onus on a debater to defend his assertion with evidence.

The solar wind is a stream of charged particles ejected from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 1.5 and 10 keV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed over time. These particles can escape the Sun's gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the corona.

The solar wind creates the heliosphere, a vast bubble in the interstellar medium that surrounds the Solar System. Other phenomena include geomagnetic storms that can knock out power grids on Earth, the aurorae (northern and southern lights), and the plasma tails of comets that always point away from the Sun.

It's the bombardment of sub-atomic particles caused by the solar wind on the comets that produce the tails that always point away from the sunIt's wikipedia for God's sake.

Debate places the onus on a debater to defend his assertion with evidence.

Not if we don't even understand how the tails of comets are produced.

if we could figure out magnetic shielding, we would already have fusion power.

Exactly my point let's go with that. Why exactly is magnetic shielding so important to the containment of nuclear fission?

All of the elements with higher atomic numbers, however, have been first discovered in the laboratory, with neptunium and plutonium later also discovered in nature. They are all radioactive, with a half-life much shorter than the age of the Earth, so any atoms of these elements, if they ever were present at the Earth's formation, have long since decayed. Trace amounts of neptunium and plutonium form in some uranium-rich rock, and small amounts are produced during atmospheric tests of atomic weapons. The Np and Pu generated are from neutron capture in uranium ore with two subsequent beta decays (238U + n → 239U → 239Np → 239Pu).

Those that can be found on Earth now are artificially generated synthetic elements, via nuclear reactors or particle accelerators. The half lives of these elements show a general trend of decreasing as atomic numbers increase. There are exceptions, however, including dubnium and several isotopes of curium.

Contaminated.

Plutonium-238 has a half-life of 88 years and emits alpha particles.

Stop, stop now. Lol. Damn, what if they find a combination with a half-life of seconds?

EDIT:Heh, that's the problem actually. Some of these are so unstable you can't do anything with them yet.

Your trapped nuclear particle bombardment theory is complete nonsense. Why? Because if it were correct, all of the Earth would be a sea of flames rivaling the core of the sun. I don't know about you, but the last time I went outside to admire the scenery my face did not melt off and I wasn't immediately burned to a cinder in the process, I guess that means there is no trapped nuclear bombardment happening in my neighborhood.

Or did you seriously think such a high energy reaction could persist in the atmosphere without anyone noticing? (Let alone not getting burned to a crisp in a fireball that would make the sixth circle of hell look like a winter vacation spot...)

Many of your theories in this thread have been so wrong that it is difficult for people to adequately convey just how wrong they are, sometimes they even violate laws of the universe that people learned in elementary school. And your 'scientific process' is about as correct as the scientific processes of a 4 year old arguing their ninja wizard robot is better than your ninja wizard robot.

You don't think it's possible that a chain reaction can or will be set off on a sub-atomic level? Would it be immediately discernible?
I've heard you argue nothing so maybe a 4 year old is smarter than a moron . Everything you have argued was wrong. It's entirely possible that nuclear blasts stripped away parts of the ozone. It's already a valid theory. Simpleton's

two fragments complete their separation and then are driven further apart by their mutually repulsive charges, in a process which becomes irreversible with greater and greater distance.

Just for kicks, what do you think this means Krom?

EDIT: This all still relates to how radio-metric dating is flawed and unreliable as the radio-active particles that get absorbed into surrounding matter were already present when testing began. We can assume that the same process that keeps those particles from entering the atmosphere would also work in reverse to prevent their escape. IF, neutrino's have now exceeded the speed of light, has that always been the case? Or is it that sub-atomic particles are now increasing in speed? Have you considered this at all or is your answer gonna be to the point of redundancy that I should just not even think about it at all? You have not given one counter-argument and the ones you attempted were immediately dismissed with observable science.

2). People who have been taught evolution from childhood have been discouraged to actually prove it out by means of peer pressure and "wholesale acceptance".

flip wrote:Everything you have argued was wrong.

You've done nothing to prove ANYTHING wrong, flip. All you've done is post a bunch of quotes that you don't even understand, and it's making those of us that do understand want to bang our heads against a concrete wall in exasperation. Do you realize how silly you're making yourself look here?

I'm going to ask you this again, because it really is relevant now: what is your educational background like? What sorts of science classes did you take in grade school or high school?

The only thing I'm arguing is that it's use for dating is unreliable. I've agreed with every friggin law of physics that exists to show you how it is flawed and unreliable. Aside from that, i'm more interested in particle acceleration and it's effects on the environment, especially on a sub-atomic scale.

EDIT: How is it you spout of this great education you received and yet cannot understand the simple concept that these elements did not even exist until they were created in a lab. I find it interesting that neptunium and plutonium were never found in the environment until AFTER "created" in a lab by a process that does not occur naturally in our atmosphere. It would also support my idea of how these isotopes get absorbed into matter on a sub-atomic level, and that nuclear fragments produced in this process stay in an excited state, finding nothing to bind with.

flip wrote:The only thing I'm arguing is that it's use for dating is unreliable. I've agreed with every friggin law of physics that exists to show you how it is flawed and unreliable.

Except the existing laws of physics are the very things that SHOW that it's reliable. Why do you think that the vast majority of scientists put stock in radiometric dating? Do you magically know something they don't?

No, I actually think it is the exact process by which things could have been dated. They put the cart before the horse though and contaminated things on an atomic level. With no prior data, the loss of constant rate of production and contamination on an atomic level screwed any hope of getting comparative data. Consequences.

No. They. Didn't. You don't get it. None of that ★■◆● affected what they're using to date. At all.

Screw it. Now I know why I said I wasn't bothering anymore.

Lol.

If I concede it is a possible means of obtaining an accurate date, does that change anything else I've said?

flip wrote:The only thing I'm arguing is that it's use for dating is unreliable. I've agreed with every friggin law of physics that exists to show you how it is flawed and unreliable. Aside from that, i'm more interested in particle acceleration and it's effects on the environment, especially on a sub-atomic scale.

EDIT: How is it you spout of this great education you received and yet cannot understand the simple concept that these elements did not even exist until they were created in a lab. I find it interesting that neptunium and plutonium were never found in the environment until AFTER "created" in a lab by a process that does not occur naturally in our atmosphere. It would also support my idea of how these isotopes get absorbed into matter on a sub-atomic level, and that nuclear fragments produced in this process stay in an excited state, finding nothing to bind with.

In order for the nuclear fragments to stay in an excited state they would have to be made from high energy stable tachyons, and in order to avoid immediately binding with suitably charged atoms the phase of their magnetic monopoles would have to be the precise inverse of the particle charge. And even then they would eventually lose the precise monopole phase from bouncing off another particle or nucleus with a different polarization charge bias (unless they were in a perfect vacuum so they wouldn't collide with anything), or simply from influence from variations in the earths or other local magnetic field flux, OR the particle charge itself could change directly from a solar neutrino collision/interaction throwing it out of that inverse phase balance. AND even if it somehow manages to avoid all that, none of these particle fragments have sufficiently long half-lives (some are measured in nanoseconds!) to cause any long term environmental effects.

I'm going to look into everything you said and try to figure how this fits into it:

Nuclear fissions in fissile fuels are the result of the nuclear excitation energy produced when a fissile nucleus captures a neutron. This energy, resulting from the neutron capture, is a result of the attractive nuclear force acting between the neutron and nucleus. It is enough to deform the nucleus into a double-lobed "drop," to the point that nuclear fragments exceed the distances at which the nuclear force can hold two groups of charged nucleons together, and when this happens, the two fragments complete their separation and then are driven further apart by their mutually repulsive charges, in a process which becomes irreversible with greater and greater distance.

Especially this part:

the two fragments complete their separation and then are driven further apart by their mutually repulsive charges, in a process which becomes irreversible with greater and greater distance

The use of the words "driven apart" and "repulsive charges" and "irreversible" give me the impression that these broken fragments repel almost like ends of a magnet. That once broken, instead of pulling back to together, they begin to push against each other. If that was the case, then that in itself would create a kind of energy, or friction and keep those fragments from ever coming to a rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

And this SOB.

Robert Ehrlich, a George Mason University professor of physics, claims to have possible experimental evidence for the existence of tachyons, hypothetical faster-than-light subatomic particles first proposed in 1962 by Bilaniuk, Deshpande, and Sudarshan. The evidence, published in several articles in the Physical Review D during June and October 1999 consists of an explanation of certain properties of the high energy cosmic rays bombarding the Earth from space. Interestingly, such faster-than-light particles seem to be required by current 12 dimensional theories developed by physicists to unify all the forces of nature.
Ask most physicists about tachyons, however, and you'll be told that they belong strictly in the realm of science fiction. That skepticism is understandable, since nearly all experiments searching for tachyons have so far turned up negative. Even worse, according to some physicists, if tachyons exist, they could be used to send messages back in time. Nevertheless, over the years a few physicists have held out hope that tachyons might actually exist --possibly disguised as some other known particle.

A hypothetical particle which moves faster than the light, \emph{a tachyon}, is known to be

classically unstable in the Minkowski space-time. This instability has its analog at the

quantum level: small vacuum fluctuations of the field lead to the unbounded growth of the

amplitude, so that appearance of the real tachyons in the spectrum means the catastrophic

instability for the theory. It has been conjectured a long time ago that possibly the lightest

particles with a nonzero mass, the neutrino, may be a tachyon. Here we shall show that in the

rotating and expanding Universe tachyons are stable if their mass is less than some constant,

which is related to the Universe's rotation and expansion scales. Current upper bound on the

rotation scale gives us a very small upper bound on tachyon's mass which is many orders less

than the mass of electron. This might be an explanation why only very light particles, like

neutrinos, have a chance to be tachyons.

So far, my theory is meeting your criteria.

EDIT: I mean imagine breaking a neutrino in half, and each half developing an opposite charge. What else could it bind back to if not even to itself?

flip wrote:So far, my theory is meeting your criteria.

Really? In what way?

flip wrote:EDIT: I mean imagine breaking a neutrino in half, and each half developing an opposite charge. What else could it bind back to if not even to itself?

It wouldn't necessarily have to bind to anything, it could simply decay down into pure energy (simple radiation or just plain old heat).

flip wrote:EDIT: I mean imagine breaking a neutrino in half, and each half developing an opposite charge. What else could it bind back to if not even to itself?

You can't "break" a neutrino, and it doesn't carry any electric charge.

you cannot break a neutrino like you can an atom.

So far, my theory is meeting your criteria.

Only if that theory was written for something like... star trek.

I think hypothesis would be much closer to the correct term than theory .

flip wrote:I'm going to look into everything you said and try to figure how this fits into it:

Nuclear fissions in fissile fuels are the result of the nuclear excitation energy produced when a fissile nucleus captures a neutron. This energy, resulting from the neutron capture, is a result of the attractive nuclear force acting between the neutron and nucleus. It is enough to deform the nucleus into a double-lobed "drop," to the point that nuclear fragments exceed the distances at which the nuclear force can hold two groups of charged nucleons together, and when this happens, the two fragments complete their separation and then are driven further apart by their mutually repulsive charges, in a process which becomes irreversible with greater and greater distance.

Especially this part:

the two fragments complete their separation and then are driven further apart by their mutually repulsive charges, in a process which becomes irreversible with greater and greater distance

The use of the words "driven apart" and "repulsive charges" and "irreversible" give me the impression that these broken fragments repel almost like ends of a magnet. That once broken, instead of pulling back to together, they begin to push against each other. If that was the case, then that in itself would create a kind of energy, or friction and keep those fragments from ever coming to a rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

And this SOB.

I will try to explain why the fission products don't keep accelerating, which means I'll have to cover some basics (there will be simplifying of course).

Atoms consist of electrons 'orbiting' a nucleus made of protons and neutrons. The distance between the electrons and the nucleus is much much bigger than the size of the nucleus itself.
Each electron has a charge of -e, each proton a charge of +e.
Same charges repel and different charges attract each other. Because unionized atoms (which are the norm) have the same number of protons and electrons they have no netto charge and can only influence other atoms close by (these interactions between the electrons of different atoms make up chemistry).

If we look at a proton in the nucleus, the electrons are faw away (since the nucleus is tiny compared to the size of the whole atoms), so the forces they exert on the proton are tiny compared to those of the other protons near by. The reason the nucleus doesn't blow apart inspite of these huge repelling forces between its protons are the neutrons acting similar to glue.
Your quote describes how the nucleus becomes unstable and fissions. Once there are two parts not held together by neutrons anymore, they fly apart. When the quote says the process becomes irreversible with greater and greater distance, this doesn't imply the force becomes bigger, it just means chances of the fragments coming back together become zero (kind of like the chances of latching unto the edge of a cliff and getting back up become zero once one has fallen beyond arms reach of it).

Now there is no reason to speculate how the force between the two parts behaves with increasing distance and whether it keeps driving them on indefinitely, since this force is well known.
The Coulomb force between two point charges (which is a very reasonable approximation, once there is a bit of distance between them) is proportional to the charges multiplied with each other divided by the square of the distance between the objects.
This means the force is biggest when the charges are closest together. It also means that the energy the particles get by moving appart can be calculated. The energy gained by moving from a given distance d to an infinit distance is proportional to 1/d. This means once the particles have moved to one hundred times their original distance, they already picked up 99% of the energy they can ever get. By the time the fragments of the nucleus pass the electron shell, any acceleration is negligible.

The fragments smash through the surrounding atoms and quickly lose speed (quickly in terms of the size of say a fuel pellet not an atom). In fact another dating method counts tracks left in a mineral by spontanous fission and compares them to the uranium content of the sample. This allows to calculate when the mineral last was hot enough to anneal the tracks.

Direct radiation from a nuclear explosion is either stopped by the surrounding air (probably most of alpha and beta radiation and some neutrons), ground or water (neutrons and gammas) or radiated into space (neutrinos, neutrons, gammas). Neutrinos don't tend to interact with other matter very much, there are plenty of neutrinos from the sun passing straight through earth, so while some neutrinos from a nuclear explosion will hit something, I doubt they amount to anything compared to those.

The fission fragments are nuclei of lighter atoms and quickly aquire new electrons. They behave like other atoms of the same kind, released together with a lot of heat, but since their neutron count is essentialy random they may be unstable and decay further. However this gives them no special way to enter any samples used for dating.

Ok, so both you and Krom are saying that because neutrinos are neutral and almost zero-mass, there is no chance that they could ever destroy the matter around them in the same way as larger radio-active particles. That's basically what radio-active particles do, they punch holes in the matter around them. I agree with that to a point, except the ever part. Hmm, I need to find out what cause some particles to be repelled by the magnetosphere and some like neutrino's to pass through. Is it just the small size or it's electro-magnetic properties or a combination of both. I mean is there a way to contain a neutrino, if they even exist, and would have too for anything I am thinking to make sense. You would have to have a very small particle whose characteristics could be changed in such a way as it could be contained. That's scary ★■◆● . Alot to take in, I'll give it a look over tomorrow and tell you what I gathered.

Another thought I had, way off base though , is the possibilities of actually creating new matter by breaking down everything to it's basic structure, neutrinos....etc, the little guys, and then engineering the combination and order of. That's how carbon is made no? That's scary ★■◆● too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequ ... ch_Program

Stumbled on this but in my mind this has great potential for being an atomic particle containment system.

That's basically what radio-active particles do, they punch holes in the matter around them.

...not even close.

TG, did you know that if you looked directly into a high-powered transmitting antenna, you would get cataracts almost instantly?That tissue is ultimately made up of atom's. The destruction of the tissue is essentially the destruction of the atomic structures. Tebo and Krom both say their must be a force exerted on the nucleus to force it apart. Radiation breaks down matter by ripping it apart.

A nucleus splitting apart is nuclear fission, which occurs within nuclear reactors and the original atomic bomb. Damage to biological tissue caused by exposure to radioactive substances doesn't involve nuclear fission in the least. Also, the damage produced by a high-powered antenna is caused by electromagnetic waves, not radioactive substances.

TG, this discussion may be over your head. We are talking possibilities and concepts built upon physical laws.

The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is just a name that scientists give a bunch of types of radiation when they want to talk about them as a group. Radiation is energy that travels and spreads out as it goes-- visible light that comes from a lamp in your house and radio waves that come from a radio station are two types of electromagnetic radiation. Other examples of EM radiation are microwaves, infrared and ultraviolet light, X-rays and gamma-rays. Hotter, more energetic objects and events create higher energy radiation than cool objects. Only extremely hot objects or particles moving at very high velocities can create high-energy radiation like X-rays and gamma-rays.

Heh, I was sitting back and thinking about this and I thought, you know, i bet someone is trying to build a pure photon beam, and I got a little of some reasons why. Heh.

http://nahandbook.web.cern.ch/nahandboo ... onbeam.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Laser ... x_kare.png

Heh, I saw this chart and immediately thought of some kind of particle accelerator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

And atmospheric manipulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequ ... ch_Program

Makes that possible.

Probably be a great laser show too

You know I think that's the difference between when I was in school and now. You were actually encouraged to think things through for yourself. I remember when I was in 2nd grade. Someone came in, dropped about 6-7 different electrical pieces and some wires in front of me. I had never seen any of this before, it was a switch, a light, a junction block, and battery pack..etc., but within 2-3 minutes I had the light working. They made walk around the whole damn school. Kids these days can name all the elements, know what atom's are made of, can name each geological period, name chemical processes. They are good at naming ★■◆●, but don't have a friggin idea of how to use it. That's why America lacks innovative people now. They just parrot back what they learned from multiple choice and true or false questions and have no way to conceive of all the possibilities. To the point to even imagine things and have a good time is met with cries of ignorance and heresy. I thought you guys would appreciate covering 7-8 different topics in 2-3 days. keeps you on pace .

flip wrote:TG, this discussion may be over your head. We are talking possibilities and concepts built upon physical laws.

The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is just a name that scientists give a bunch of types of radiation when they want to talk about them as a group. Radiation is energy that travels and spreads out as it goes-- visible light that comes from a lamp in your house and radio waves that come from a radio station are two types of electromagnetic radiation. Other examples of EM radiation are microwaves, infrared and ultraviolet light, X-rays and gamma-rays. Hotter, more energetic objects and events create higher energy radiation than cool objects. Only extremely hot objects or particles moving at very high velocities can create high-energy radiation like X-rays and gamma-rays.

It's not TG who is in over his head. Yes EM radiation covers all that, but to cause direct damage a photon needs to have enough energy to break appart molecular bonds, otherwise it just generates heat. For that at least ultra violet light is necessary (~4 eV), with roughly 100'000 times the energy per photon of radio frequency photons. Because of that the only known way for radio frequency radiation to damage tissue is by heating it.

Gamma rays have energies in the range of 100'000 to 10'000'000 eV and you compare them with photons from an antenna, which have less than 0.0001 eV each. That's like comparing soft air gun shots to 120mm kinetic energy penetrators, expect about a hundred times worse.

Lol, man yall are a bunch of hard-heads. Particle accelerators work on the same principal, same spectrum. Just higher energy levels and frequencies.

You know, it's the same process on a smaller scale. Radio-frequency excites and separates bonds on a molecular level. As you go up in the spectrum, it starts pulling on the actual bonds that hold atom's together. It's an obvious connection. Is that not the definition you were given?

flip wrote:So far, my theory is meeting your criteria.

No seriously, what part my criteria? In what way? Please elaborate.

flip wrote:To the point to even imagine things and have a good time is met with cries of ignorance and heresy.

It's easy to come up with new ideas. Coming up with *good* ideas, on the other hand, is much more difficult, and the folks who browse the DBB don't have much tolerance for people arguing for bad ones.

We don't mind answering others' questions. But trying to learn about a topic by pretending to be an expert in it and arguing for absurdities only makes an ass out of yourself.

For some it's easy to come up with ideas, not so for the flat-earthers though.

Krom if your really interested in the correlations I see, I'll send it to you in a PM. I don't normally do PM's, but the flat-earther above is seething at the teeth, ready to stone me for heresy. You have the information Jeff, problem is, you lack inspiration, Your what I call OCD type of scientist. You just constantly repeat others experiments, but you have no real vision to actually see what they did.

Except for very general statements, I haven't made any scientific claims in this thread. (I'm not as familiar with these topics as the others are and would probably embarrass myself.) However, I have been calling you out consistently on your uncool conduct. (Many others in this thread have too.) If your solution is to stop debating all together, then that's acceptable, but I'd rather you take debate more responsibly instead.