[bufferoverflow]

All your arguments are basically "we already know all of physics, there's nothing new to learn". Which is just wrong.

And then you engage in obvious logical fallacies like talking about mendelevium, as if it's exactly the same as hypothetical stable isotopes from the island of stability. You have no idea what you're talking about, you have not produced those isotopes, no human did.

And then you engaged in completely dishonest straw man with the space cat. I never claimed that there are such isotopes or other used yet unknown natural materials, I just suggested that there may have been some.

Considering how dishonest you are, I won't respond any more.

[Intralexical]

My argument is that based on everything which we do already know, it is unlikely that any material with the physical and economic properties like what you are suggesting can exist, and any "suggestion" that such a material does exist is completely arbitrary. Russell's teapot, and all that. There's plenty new to learn, but it'll probably be closer to strangelets and dark matter in exotic conditions than "baryonic rocks but amazingly shiny".

The entire point of "science" is that you can and should make reasonable predictions based on past observations. E.G. Mendelevium. Calling that a "obvious logical fallacy" is… Disturbing, frankly.

You know, I've yet to see you make a single point that's based on anything more than "Maybe", "No, it doesn't", or "How dishonest you are". Lots of rhetoric. Not much else.

It is your choice to interpret disagreement and contradictory information as "dishonest". Have fun with that.

"I never claimed… I just suggested." Ffs.