exchemist

Just read the posts made in response to you up to this point and look for the sentences with a question mark at the end.

Leibnitz and Newton are thought to have independently developed calculus at around the same time, though I think it was Leibnitz who published first. As so often with science and mathematics, the idea was germinating at the time and trying to determine who got there "first" is rather debatable and of limited value. Both men most certainly existed, though. I can't make sense of the rest of your post.

Sure, I just meant it as an example of where factors other than technical superiority have determined the technology chosen. Thinking about it more, I suppose @TheVat's point may not actually be a technical one really, but more an economic one, viz. why spend limited resources on a "sticking plaster" technology, rather than on those that address the problem at source? But again my view would be the amount of resources is not really fixed. Some governments, corporations/societies may be willing to devote funds and effort to a "sticking plaster" technology that they would not be willing to expend on, say hydrogen, or nuclear energy, in which case I would say let them do that then, at least to see how far it can be made to work, while others pursue the more fundamental solutions.

Icelanders already do use geothermal power, a lot, for electricity and space heating. My attitude to this is that the human race seems to be currently in a "brainstorming" phase, in which many rival approaches are being tried simultaneously, without much judgement as to which are best. I think that is the right approach, as so many of these technologies are new that we can't yet be sure which will be the ones we take forward and which will prove to be dead ends. I have in mind it is not just a matter of apparent technical superiority. There are human factors, such as social acceptance and geopolitics, to take into account as well. Betamax was technically superior to VHS. Regarding "greenwashing", this is an easy accusation to make but the fact is we will need fossil fuel for quite a few years yet as we make the transition. It seems to me carbon offset trading has a role to play while we do this. I don't buy the notion that they are all about continuing business as usual.

Can you summarise the key points you are making here in a paragraph, or in bullet point form?

OK. I look forward to learning from you in due course what tests you would propose to show the validity of your ideas.

I’m not a physicist but I suspect the reception you will get will depend on: (1) what predictions your model makes that enable its validity to be tested and (2) whether it is compatible with the rest of physics. We get a lot of people who just dream stuff up with no attention to how their ideas could be validated experimentally, and a lot more who think their ideas can exist in a vacuum, when they are incompatible with everything else. Obviously no one is going to tear down the whole of physics, just because of a claim to account for a handful of phenomena in a different way. Good luck.

As a rank amateur in these matters, I must say Pigliucci and Peter Woit are 2 people I value highly as thoughtful but clear and well grounded, with functioning bullshit detectors. Degrasse Tyson and Krauss are slightly too glib for my taste.

What is meant by the dashed arrows a and b?

No.

My opinion of him went down considerably when I learned he has tried to rubbish philosophy: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2014/05/20/pigliucci-pwns-neil-degrasse-tyson-smbc-teases-pigliucci/ He doesn't seem to understand that science is both rooted in philosophy and poses philosophical questions. So I suspect he's a bit shallow. I'm sure he knows his science but I would take anything he says about other matters with a pinch of salt.

Don't think the qualifier "standalone" would suggest the OP had neutrinos in mind.

Are you sure this is right? My understanding was neutrons are some of the secondary products produced when cosmic rays interact with atoms in the atmosphere.

A bullet most definitely does make a noise as it flies through the air. Whether you hear it as a whizz or as a crack depends on whether it is sub- or supersonic as it passes. But in the case of paper and tape, you also have something else: a resonator. The surface of the paper or the tape will be made to move when the breaks take place and this will make a larger volume of air move.

If you think being 13.8 billion years old is "fresh and new", you have a curious conception of these terms.