swansont

Except that's not what he said. He said "we're kinda almost there" - which is less bold than what you quoted - and he mentions chemicals causing depression and how some depression is addressed but not cured by antidepressants, but he never makes a statement about its cause in humans. He's not making black-and-white statements. His tone makes it clear that there are still unknowns and things work for only some people. The rest is stating the goal that we hope to reach. How is that not an accurate portrayal? IMO he takes a proper tone in how he presents it.

One thing I've noticed is that Merlin will let you play the calls and songs of the birds. I played some back and immediately heard the song from the nearby woods. I don't know if it was a response, or if I was just recognizing the song because I could associate it with that species. (it's also made me aware of how much ambient noise there is from car traffic)

There are different versions of democracy, so having a conflict over which version to implement does not inherently mean you don't have a democratic society.

Sure. You could build the pillars I mentioned much deeper, and have a space between the ice walls and any source of heat. You could vent any exhaust through a hole above the settlement. It would be even more like an igloo than a surface settlement. (they could even call the settlements igloos, and come up with some backronym for that) The heat could even help carve out the cave, and you could reach the equilibrium of where the ice stopped melting naturally. You'd have to excavate some of the ice, but some could melt and the runoff fill in any fissures that might exist, making the foundation even more stable. (though ice at that depth is probably pretty solid)

You should know that there's a lot of things to learn, so perhaps it would be better to ask questions. That would include things like "can you have a star with a mass of a million suns?" and we have some people here who could explain.

You can be a scientist but not publish very much; it depends on your circumstances. Not every scientist lives in the "publish or perish" world of academia. In any event, he has a number of journal publications in the last 30 years. here are three from <20 years back The Faint-End Slopes of Galaxy Luminosity Functions in the COSMOS Field C. T. Liu et al., 2008, Astrophysical Journal Letters, v.672, p.198 COSMOS: Hubble Space Telescope Observations N. Scoville et al., 2007, Astrophysical Journal Supplement, v.172, p.38 The Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS): Overview N. Scoville et al., 2007, Astrophysical Journal Supplement, v.172, p.1 I'd like a citation on that "fact" IMO no, but it also depends on the level of discussion. If you aren't supposed to discuss things outside of your area of expertise we'd have to disband SFN. i.e. you can still know certain things and discuss them despite not being an expert. The issue is knowing your limits and recognizing when you are out of your depth. We aren't aware of serotonin and dopamine? That's news to me. Your summary sounds like he was making general statements, which doesn't require expertise. It's wrong in the same sense that all science discussion is wrong - there's always more detail, and general statements always have caveats. But if you object to general statements, you'd have to eliminate almost all discussion.

Why would they spiral if not from gravity? At galactic scales you have nothing else to explain accelerated motion. ! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your blog is against the rules, and the rules require that material for discussion be posted here. So none of this "counts" - don't expect that anyone has read it. ! Moderator Note So this is just guesswork. We're not the guesswork forums, we're scienceforums(.net) If you want to speculate, it must be backed by something that's considered science. You need a model and be able to make predictions or compare with existing experiments If you have no math, there's nothing to reference. An idea is just a small part of making a theory. The hard part is making the model (i.e. the math). Credit goes there, not to someone who had a vague notion, and hasn't even checked to see if someone else had (and published) a similar notion in the past hundred years or so. But probably not published, if they had done the math and seen that this doesn't work. And needs a force to explain/account for it.

What’s the evidence that galaxies are orbiting the CBH? What are the value of the accelerations in your scenario, and can you show how much mass the CBH must have? The distances involved?

I was just made aware of a bird call identifier called Merlin. Last evening a friend used some (name unknown to me) app to identify a plant; I used to have one on a previous phone, and newer iOS devices can leverage visual lookup to do so. In the past I’ve used an app to identify insects (bug identifier or picture insect) I also have a sound meter app. What else is out there for nature and science buffs? Preferably free, and stand-alone — nothing that needs to be plugged in to the phone.

That would explain some of the activity we’ve seen here

Igloos remain stable even with a heat source inside. If the ice/snow is really cold because the ambient temperature is low, and is some distance from the heat source, it won’t melt. A town on a platform would be analogous to this. The pillars would be cold and not melt the ice. The hot air from the town would tend to rise.

This would mean they are selling power to your neighbor at $0.025 per kWh. That doesn’t seem right.

Your neighbors pay the utility $10 for the 100 kWh you generated and the utility delivered. You get $7.50, the utility keeps $2.50.

! Moderator Note No. Peddle this crap elsewhere

Since you have only presented a strawman of the mainstream view, this is moot. Relativity says nothing about “time frames” and copies of the physical universe. That sounds vaguely like the many-worlds interpretation of QM, but one must note that MWI is an interpretation, and not actually QM. Similarly you seem to be offering an interpretation of the prevailing view, which is not the actual science.

Surely there is some basic premise that’s testable. Every bit of effort you put into telling us how you can’t present your theory is effort you could have put into telling us your theory.

Forest fires are not burning fossil fuels. Forests will grow again, so any CO2 released is offset by growth somewhere. Fossil fuels represent sequestered carbon, stored over many millions of years but released over a much shorter time, and much faster than natural processes could store it again. It is because we were burning fossil fuels that these rates aren’t the same. It didn’t start with the invention of fire - it started with the large-scale burning of sequestered carbon. Most of the time before the industrial era back for hundreds of thousands of years, the CO2 levels were lower than at the outset of the industrial era

! Moderator Note Do not, under any circumstances, take it to PM. Just cease and desist with the pot-stirring and stick to the topic under discussion

As is true for everyone Likewise, we’d like to know your ideas are on solid footing before we waste time learning the subsequent details. e.g. you claim a neutron is an electron magnetically bound to a proton. If that’s a basis for your ideas, I’d like you to justify it. Because if you can’t, i.e. it’s bogus, then anything built on it is bogus as well.

I don’t think this is a zero-sum situation.

Did I call it a force? Did I say anything about the weak interaction at all in this thread? And yet mainstream physics says it’s unitless. If you’re going to use terminology, the default is that it means what is in common use. You agree the constant you want to use is not unitless, so you must mean something else. Come up with a new name for it. Then come up with a model and a way to test it, or evidence from existing experiments That’s more speculation on your part. There’s already a model in use that’s different, and having a bound electron in this way is not consistent with known physics. Plus you need to account for the antineutrino So, again, we need a model and evidence. This is not true just because you say so. I’m not aware that anyone claims this to be the case. Great. Let’s see the model. We want the theory, for starters.

Since the fine structure constant is unitless, and these charges do not have the same units, this cannot be the case. Is it your contention that the fine structure constant is different for protons?

Are they rivals, though? VHS and beta were rivals because you would only use one, but if two approaches can be used in different situations they are complementary, at least to some extent. If approaches have strengths and weaknesses you can tailor your system to what works best in your location or situation.

You can do more than one thing. Preventing carbon emissions doesn’t remove carbon that’s already in the system. Given the state of things, a multi-pronged approach seems prudent.

Planck’s constant. It is the quantum of angular momentum, but is not necessarily the angular momentum of any particular particle. The electron, for example, is spin-1/2. Its angular momentum is hbar * sqrt(s(s+1))