ACG52

Is there any research that can prove my hypothesis completely wrong?

The mantra of the crank. 'Prove me wrong'

It isn't a language problem. It's a defective thought problem.

Except that DM foes not interact with normal matter (except gravitationally) so there is no transfer of kinetic [thermal] energy.

I think it's only going to happen if the most intelligent species on the planet decides it's worth it and makes the investment.

What are the odds that dolphins will decide that?

If I understand it correctly

You don't.

We would see galaxies. From any point in the universe we would see a spherical volume of space 96 blys in diameter.

Whenever David writes 'so you agree' you can be sure that what follows is his misunderstood crap.

I hope that by now, we all understand the meaning of that paradox.

However, what could be the source for this error?

You

Talking to David is like trying to nail jello to a wall. It just doesn't stick.

My sincere condolences Moontanman. Your post brought tears to my eyes.

Deja woo

Accurate.

Sound waves are molecules bumping against each other. If you push on the rod you are causing the molecules to transmit force down the rod, ie sound waves.

 

Nowhere does Einstein's theory mention 10 dimensions. What is a "10 dimensional galaxy"?

 

Can you show, in appropriate mathematical detail, that the Einstein Field Equations work in 10 dimensions? Or even in anything other than 4?

He's obviously confusing Einstein's work with string theory.

I just found this quite interesting webpage: http://elib.dlr.de/73063/

Scientists speculate (2010) that there might be traces of metallic iron on the surface of Iapetus and throughout the rings...

 

So my suggestion about ring particles containing iron might not be completely crazy. Iron is dark and if it's mostly covered with very bright ice/frost so it will be very difficult to detect visually (with spectrometer etc.). Of cource it's another question if there's enough iron for my "theory" to work. I think at least something like 5% iron in volume would be required. If rest would be frost and/or ice, iron would already make quite significant part of the mass.

 

By the way when I originally wrote "iron-nickel" it was just a hunch. I didn't have any knowledge that iron might have actually been detected on the rings. I just had couple of ideas and iron seemed most probable (or "least improbable"... compared to carbon fullerene structure for example...).

 

So, I will continue speculation until there's good pile of evidence against my idea.

You would be better off accumulating evidence for your idea. Prove me wrong is the mantra of a crank.

They were present in the dust cloud that the sun and the planets coalesced from. Except for the primodial elements, hydrogen, helium and lithium, they were created by nuclear reactions in supernovas, which broadcast them throughout space and seefed the dust clouds. The primordial elements were created by nuclear reactions at the time of the Big Bang.

If you're using a fusion explosion its far more likely to be propelling atomized dust up into the air, rather than rock. There's no way to moderate a fusion explosion.

 

Why do so many theists posting here have such inferiority complexes?

 

You seem to be making unsupported conjecture to bolster a tenuous unsupported hypothesis.

This might sound a bit far-fetched but I'm just looking for a material that a) could be available and b) could explain why particles seek to the Saturn's equator.

All observations are that the rings are ice particles. No metals. Observation speaks against your idea.

My science disagrees with concept of time dilation, full stop.

Then 'your science' disagrees with evidence and experimental results, and hence isn't science.

The words 'don't make sense' really means 'I don't know so it can't be right'.

Robert A Heinlein once said that logic says that if something didn't happen yesterday it can't happen tomorrow.

Since all objects have their own gravity the bar also has it own gravity that pushes itself upward and slows it down.

Gravity does not push upward. Gravity is only attractive.

Has anyone said that? I don't think so.