OK, here I go on a wild toot. What if c^2 is negative? I.e. the "speed of light" is a complex number, or a pair of numbers, one of which is real and the other is imaginary? Then we might have c and c^2, and we can define the imaginary C=ic and C^2 = i^2c^2. This is different than the topic of negative mass, of course. I think I just boggled myself.

Actually, no. Occam's Razor (as others have noted) is more or less about choosing the simplest theory that fits the facts. Falsifiability is about whether a theory is testable or not.

I'll just add this irrelevant point: any theory that concerns the Universe as a whole, viewed as a system from outside, is inherently unfalsifiable, even though it may be true. I can say, "the Universe is blue, viewed from outside", and there is no way to prove that, so far.

Definition: "Crackpot: disagrees with me." :D

- that's not evidence. That's a question, for which the answer has not been determined. It's not even certain that the assertion upon which the question is based, "we have not heard from them", is true.

... given the existing theoretical model

we must always keep in mind that, just as Newton's model turned out to be incomplete, the present model may - nay is - incomplete. Or incorrect. Or ??

= my new catch-phrase, perhaps replacing "We're all gonna die!" - thanks! ;D

Ah, the

principle. IANA physicist, but I've never been happy with this here thingy. As the article states, "Wolfgang Pauli gave physics his exclusion principle as a way to explain the arrangement of electrons in an atom. His hypothesis was that only one electron can occupy a give quantum state." This is a principle without an explanation. It's one of those physics things that you have to take on faith, and because nothing works without it. AFAIK there's never been any real explanation of _why_ this principle exists, or what causes it to be true. I suppose this could be considered a kind of physics 'axiom', but that's still not very satisfactory.

Have any theorists tried to construct a plausible universe model where the exclusion principle is not true or not applicable (and everything doesn't just collapse in on itself, of course)?

Oh, BTW - this is just one of many examples where science does, in fact, depend on pure faith. This is a lesson to overly dogmatic anti-religionists - or, as WC Fields once said, "Everyone believes in something. I believe I'll have another drink." :D

Well, in truth some mass is just not quite _sure_, but is willing to go along with the consensus.
And some mass is on a downer, and just not the type to be 'up' all the time.

Actually I think the ban predated Nylon - it was Hearst's plan to force papermakers to use his licensed process for making paper out of wood, instead of hemp. He demonized in his newspapers, funded "Reefer Madness" and bribed Congress to include cannabis in the Volstead Act.

Actually cannabis is the second most common weed in Nebraska - or was a couple of decades ago, and there's no reason why that has changed. The midwest has 'volunteer' hemp growing everywhere. Attempts to eradicate it were stopped after a suit by the Audubon society, as the seeds are a major food source for birds - and hemp has very little THC. Some friends and I personally found a large (40 acres at least) field of hemp in northern Illinois back in the day, complete with beehives. I don't know if this was 'fallow' or being grown on purpose. We nabbed a 14 foot plant for a Christmas tree in the dorm.

IIRC hops is close enough to cannabis that a hops plant can be grafted to a marijuana root, and will grow with at least some of the weed ingredients.

Minor point - IIRC weed was targeted by William Randolph Hearst back in the 20s. Hearst owned the largest newspaper chain in the US, and had bought the global rights to the new method for making paper out of wood. His goal was to eliminate hemp as a fiber source for paper. He set up a huge tree plantation in Guyana (or thereabouts) and began a major attack on weed. He began a publicity campaign in his papers about the evils of weed, funded the making of "Reefer Madness", and lobbied and bribed congresscritters to include weed in the Volstead Act as a dangerous drug.

At that time hemp, which is a slightly different variety of cannabis, was a major source of quality fiber for rope as well as paper (and still better than any other vegetable fiber AFAIK). The hemp growing industry was destroyed. But even today, cannabis is a major 'weed' throughout the midwest, and is a primary source of seeds for birds.

Once when motorcycling around the wilds of Illinois we came upon a large tract - probably 40 acres - of hemp, complete with a set of beehives. I have no idea if this was just fallow land or being grown on purpose. We came back with a car and collected one 14 foot plant for a Christmas tree in the dorm. The branches were two feet apart. Smoking was tried, it was pretty much smoking a rope.

Taking this one step farther - engineering a gut bacterium. Stay high _all_ the time.

I am associated with someone who does know this stuff. If you never write down your password, never tell anyone else, and as this case shows, don't tell anyone what's in there, they can not compel you, in the US.

If he had not admitted involvement, and said that the evidence was in there, he wouldn't be in the situation. He gave them probable cause for a search. This is much like telling the cops, "I've got dope in the trunk, but I won't open it." There are other comments that go into more detail so I won't bother.