There might be a clue considering the topic I am posting on, but I can assure you it's not pseudoscience! 😉
Can you elaborate on how if at all, the current model correlates with the accepted climate change model? Is it to any degree predictable?
Why would it matter? Wouldn't anyone trained in science be better at evaluating any kind of it than a Lawyer?
I tried to find out, but with no success and asked you to provide links (see my post #2358). You did not comply, I wonder why not?
P.S. I want clickable links, I'm not doing your work for you!
Last edited:
This thread is not about climate change. I suggest you take your question elsewhere.
Okay, well I guess that answers that question
That's like about the third time the right emoticon just happened to appear as an option.
appreciated
That's like about the third time the right emoticon just happened to appear as an option.
appreciated
Last edited:
The best science fiction is based on science fact. I happen to be a big fan of science fiction.
The real science of science fiction | Books | The Guardian
The real science of science fiction | Books | The Guardian
dude
he was the first to explain the how&why of double slit experiment. what have you done thats better ???
he was the first to explain the how&why of double slit experiment. what have you done thats better ???
Oh, I'd just love to see that explanation. 🙄
P.S. You'll find I've written about it several times on this forum.
P.S. You'll find I've written about it several times on this forum.
Have you seen the wheels on Caesar Milan's roller blades?
No I haven't, but you can't argue with Roger Miller.
YouTube
Dark matter materializing from nothingness, or micro bubble foam, is no more incredible than a big bang exploding from nothingness, I guess.
Perhaps our state of matter is a degenerate form of dark matter, and no longer has the makeup to perceive or interact with it, aside from gravity.
I eat like a pro at Christmas : elastic stretch waistband pants.
They look solid, but are stretchy.
Maybe space time is stretchy pants, to accommodate a steady state like influx of new matter and energy. 🤣
the explanation was in the link that you asked for, and that i provided. i'm surprised that a scientist would "poo poo" someone else's work without at least exploring it first.
good luck
good luck
Let me rephrase my response - I saw no valid explanation.
He says "This leaves the world's brightest minds still searching for answers to this basic question. Is matter a particle or a wave?"
Obviously he hasn't heard of Schrödinger's wave equation! Now that's an example of real science!
Attachments
We tend to think of dark matter as some kind of modern invention, but evidence for its existence extends back as far as 1933 when Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky noticed something odd about the Coma cluster of galaxies. The stars on the edges of the cluster were revolving much faster than could be explained by his estimate of the mass of visible matter in the cluster. He calculated that there was about four hundred times more mass in the Corona cluster than could be accounted for.
In 1939, Dutch astronomer Jan Oort showed that the distribution of mass in a certain elliptical galaxy differed from the distribution of the light emited by the visible matter within the galaxy.
Neither of these observations was taken seriously till 1970 when American astronomer Vera Rubin mapped out the rotational velocities of the stars in the Andromeda galaxy and found that the outer stars were moving so fast that they should be flying off into intergalactic space. The only explanation was that the stars were being held in place by the gravitational influence of invisible matter. Remembering Vera Rubin | American Institute of Physics
It wasn't until 1980 that the the first scientific meeting on the subject of dark matter was held when Ruben proclaimed that we would know what dark matter was within a decade.
Today, we still don't know what it is, but we know it must be there!
Attachments
- Status
- Not open for further replies.