And even this statement is not scientific State a firm and definitive hypothesis that can be challenged
They call people a troll if they don't accept the discipline that is trying to be forced. I have already had a discussion on science forums etiquette and feel there needs political interference. We have trolls, sock puppets and now spods. I consider myself more of a spod. Trolls generally stick to posting present information links, telling the poster they are wrong because wiki says it is this way. New theories then struggle to develop before the opp is eventually banned by troll peer pressure on the mods. Have you noticed how I remain polite and try never to be rude? I might be a bit arrogant but that is because I know how good of a notion my notion is about time, I will eventually defeat the trolls and finally find science beyond the trolls were eventually I will find some intelligence.
You like formulas? Δt=(tP) Where Δ is change and t is time and (tP) is time planck Challenge that ............ p.s A future chronological position is directly proportional to the length of past position.
Enough of that So, explain to the forum why we should believe you. Are you formally trained in climate science? Have you studied in college, Calculus, Physics and Chemistry? Give us your resume.
Ok let us discourse this video, view the video from 6 minutes on. Now look at my diagram and observe what happens if we use time Planck, the observer , observes a relative straight line. The ''parlour trick'' involved in the video is the distance between the mirrors. An observer would also not observe the light beam without a medium such as smoke, the mirrors are observer affect, and all light in the example is travelling directly towards you at all times.
''If'' means preventable, I could say when , but I am not a fortune teller. I gave up on this idea anyway, but then I actually thought again and understand why the air at the desert is still the same density as say the Uk. Gravity is isotropic so the density will be pretty much the same, If there was a global expansion of air at the same time, maybe gravity will not have enough force to pull the air back down.
I do not have to give you anything I owe NOTHING to anyone and I personally do not believe resumes posted on the internet because too many have claimed advanced degrees who obviously do not understand the basic principles of science Now it IS possible to be an autodidact on science but and this is an important but you need to know how to formulate your own cognitive map and more importantly how to distinguish science from ***** Unfortunately the internet has too many of the latter. Take a site like, to use an extreme example http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html There is not one thing on that site that is fiction but it is the way it is presented and the slight twisting of the truth that makes it not only wrong but hilarious Because it is set up as a joke it is easy to go along but it has a more serious underpinning - that of showing how truth about science can be warped to rubbish I have an oft repeated meme "DO NOT CONFUSE POOR JOURNALISM WITH GOOD SCIENCE" Finally what does a "cognitive map" or cognitive construct have to do with anything? Well imagine trying to learn the science about anatomy without knowing what the organs look like and where they lie within the body? A good cognitive map gives you the basic principles upon which to build
We are the cause of global climate change, every human breathe changes the entropy of climate, every television or microwave changes the entropy of climate. Anything that is ''alien'' to the Earth affects the entropy of the earth and the earths' climate.
Some maps lead to the wrong place and can be easily read wrong and misdirected along the wrong path. For example if somebody claimed the speed of time was in 1 second increments and science then followed this path, we would have all sorts of mythical dogma created from this such as time travel and twin paradox's. Luckily we would not be that stupid would we!
Whoosh, that was the sound of the hot air balloon deflating. So, you have no science background. And you attacked other posters who said they learn from the internet. Seems you use it to make a point.
Incorrect, I and you are additives to the planet, we are alien to the planet. Maybe you are considering little green aliens instead of like illegal alien.
We were discussing controlling global climate. Unless you have some unseen power over bacteria then your statement is just argumentative and irrelevant.
I did not come from any planet, I came from a womb that is not attached to the earth but rather my dear departed mother. I live on Earth but there is nothing to suggest we are off this Earth to begin with unless you believe in subjective evolution.
Yes but, your mother was (sorry for your loss) a part of the Earth as all of us humans are. Did you not say that humans are alien to the Earth? Maybe I misunderstood.
Well first of all Human's have survived many ice ages and have survived many other things and we are more than capable of surviving as a species the inevitable Ice Age that will be created via Global Warming. Think of the Earth as a FISH TANK. When the fish in the tank breed into too great a number they begin to die off as their own excrement turns the water toxic as the tanks filter struggles to handle the increase in ammonia and etc... As well if the tanks water warms up too much a heavy buildup growth of algae begins to occur and this along with the poisoning of the tank system will cause a DIE OFF of fish in the tank. The fish will continue to die until a BALANCE IS RESTORED and this is EXACTLY what will happen to human beings on Earth. IF we do not try to fix it but honestly we are already past a tipping point. AA
Well...humans today, at least in the USA, generally speaking require others to provide them with food and water and shelter and health care, etc. Severely limit any of these and our very fragile humans today are in big trouble! No doubt with some world disaster or crisis a 'few' humans can survive but the masses are in big trouble. Long ago the few humans could migrate for survival but good luck having our 320 million Americans trying to migrate...never mind the other 7 billion in the world seeking out food and water and shelter. I suppose 6.98 billion of our 7 billion humans can parish but the other 20 million might find hospitable locations around the world to survive. This is not the metrics we should brag about. You assume a 'balance' will be restored? If it takes a 100 years to destroy the balance it can take 100+ years to ever see a restored balance...IMO humans cannot survive during these 100 years...things would be quite grim...
One of my earlier points, America supplies a huge amount of resources of food to other countries, Americas bargaining chips are not gold, it is food and maybe other things America aids the world in resources. Another point I have made is where are all the Americans going to go if there was a catastrophic event in the states? Surely America falls out with too many countries and the politics alone will be the end of America if they needed aid or evacuation. I wonder how many Americans would go down with the ''ship'' and how many would swallow their pride and ask for help off let's say Mexico or Russia. Perhaps 320 million Americans would fit in the Iraqi desert or somewhere similar, complete ''chit'' places full of mouths full of sand, and we wonder why people want to migrate from the desert etc.