Leaderboard

Today I learned about Vavilovian mimicry. Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov was a biologist who studied the evolution of domesticated plants, in particular rye. He proposed that rye was "accidentally" domesticated. Originally it was a weed in fields of wheat and so early farmer would pick it out to ensure their wheat could grow. But they were more efficient at picking out the immature rye plants that looked most different from wheat. So they inadvertently selected for rye plants that looked more wheat-like. Eventually rye became so similar to wheat that it was a useful grain in its own right. This is generally accepted today, even though Vavilov is largely forgotten. Vavilov was killed by Stalin, who only liked science that fitted his political beliefs (e.g. Lysenkoism).

It is also an invented reason to be angry. Adding a word to make it sound bad (be THE best) and then complaining about it is really quite unfair. Surely there are enough things to complain about that really happened.

I understand how therapeutic it can sometimes feel to vent, but there sin't really anything to discuss here and it's mostly a rant

As we've said before dictionaries record, not dictate, contempoary usage. Does 'gay' mean now, in common usage, what it meant when we were young? I certainly remember older folks at the time using it in a now-archaic sense. My point being that pedantry is pointless when language is constantly evolving.

I see a lot of overanalysis and overthinking here. Anyone who has ever boiled a pot of water can tell you that water molecules below the water level can become gaseous since therein is an explanation for the bubbling of water vapor up through the surface of boiling water.

Current models predicts how black holes behave but does not rely on what is inside a black hole AFAIK. We can speculate what is inside given the current theories, theories that we have supporting observations for. Note: "proved right" might not be the best way to say it. We rely on supporting evidence when theories are accepted.

You can be at rest with respect to space, but not time.

To be blunt; checking if your idea is unscientific or not. First; the result from the thought experiment discussion seems to be that an alternative model, created according to the same rules as your model can’t be distinguished from your model. Now let's check scientific vs unscientific: List of what I find in the tread so far: -The only way to perform an observation supporting your idea is to enter a black hole. -Your idea accepts GR which per definition means there is no way, even in principle, to get any information back from the hypothetical observation done beyond the event horizon. To further complicate observation: -Even if a probe could, by some exotic means, communicate back from behind the event horizon (which is in principle impossible according to GR and your own descriptions) the probe would have turned into negative matter when it passed through the event horizon. -Your idea states that the properties behind event horizons are unique; it is there, and only there, we will find negative matter, negative gravity etc. According to your presented facts, as I understand them*, this has the following consequences: -A probe, sent into the only region in the universe where the test can be performed will: 1: Turn into negative matter (and also inflate) once the probe passes the event horizon. 2: Have no means what so ever to send anything back to an observer outside of the black hole since the probe is beyond the event horizon. I do not know if this is your intention or not but from the description so far you have created a scenario that is in principle completely impossible to get supporting observational evidence for. Isn't running some simulation as the only possible support for the idea very close to unscientific? Before you compare to other theories, please note the difference between Extremely complicated, impractical, expensive, currently not possible and impossible even in principle. So far It looks like falsification/verification of your idea falls into the second category. *) Disclaimer: I may have missed some detail in the five pages, or some explanations in the mathematics. But I'm confident that at least the last part are covered by @joigus and other experts.

Because they are bound together by gravity. Galaxies are similarly held together by gravity, And even clusters of galaxies. It is only on very large scales (the distances between clusters of galaxies) that we can see expansion happening.

Good contribution. +1 The French have a solar furnace capable of smelting metals, that works on this principle.

I am not sure to what extent that is common knowledge: Using reflectors to focus on a point, generate steam and then run a turbine just as in fuel-based power plants is actually done. It's called Solar-Thermal Power (see e.g. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/solar/solar-thermal-power-plants.php) or Concentrated Solar Power. As far as I know, for electricity generation this method is more expensive than using Photovoltaic systems, and therefore often not considered. And for generating heat you usually do not reflect+focus but simply absorb (-> Solar Collector). The biggest advantage of Solar-Thermal over Photovoltaics is that Solar-Thermal power plants can store the thermal energy to some extent before using it, so they are somewhat controllable in their generation and can generate electricity at night. In some situations, this can make them the preferred choice (according to a former colleague of mine who did a lot of energy system design for northern Africa). For the system cost I would assume that on the side of steam system, turbine and electrical system it's pretty much the same as for any other coal, gas or nuclear power plant, except that those tend to be larger and therefore perhaps more cost efficient. The difference in cost hence is heater vs. collectors+storage. I have no intuitive feeling for it, except that I expect the hater to be relatively cheap (specifically: a simpler piece of technology than a turbine). From an old Irena publication (https://www.irena.org/documentdownloads/publications/re_technologies_cost_analysis-csp.pdf) it seems that collectors+storage make up roughly 50% of the project cost (Figure 4.2 - there's also lot's of tables with more details if you are interested in those). So my answer to "how expensive can it be" would be "roughly twice the cost of a coal power plant" in terms of construction cost. You obviously don't pay for fuel (coal). End-costs for generated electricity (levelized cost of electricity or LCOE) always depend a lot on local situations and calculation method. On the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source the listed figures suggest 6.1 ct/kWh for Australian Solar Thermal generation and anything from 3.3 - 15.2 ct/kWh for coal. On a final note: You seem to implicitly assume that main investments into new power infrastructure goes into coal and nuclear power plants. That is not the case. Globally, new installations in renewable technologies have overtaken the non-renewables a few years ago. Even in the US, the only country that left the Paris Climate Agreement, new power installations are either renewable or gas (mostly because energy infrastructure is built private companies, not the federal government): https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42495 .

Attitudes such as these have led to over 800 thousand deaths and counting. It also the reason why folks do not vaccinate against influenza and thereby needlessly increasing death rates. It would only be sad, if folks who adhere to these beliefs were also the victims. Unfortunately dealing with diseases is a community effort.

! Moderator Note First, without the maths, you don't have a model. Second, we won't be discussing religion-related ANYTHING in a scientific speculation. ! Moderator Note Third, science isn't interested in proof. Science works with theory, which is our best current explanation for various phenomena. Your whole approach is flawed because you think your "answer" is right and now you're trying to "prove" it no matter what, and that's NOT doing science. Belief is based on how trustworthy the explanation is, and the current model proves itself constantly, every day. You've had six pages to defend your idea, and you've gotten some EXCELLENT replies trying to help you form a more reasoned methodology. You've shown some improvement about taking new information on board, but you still ignore most posts that refute your idea. This would be a great time to re-read, re-calibrate, and reflect on the rigor with which you wish to approach your proposal. If you can find scientific ways to support it, and develop a mathematical model that allows you to make predictions based on your proposal, then PM a staff member and you can open a new speculative thread to discuss these new perspectives. Thread closed.