Leaderboard

Yeah, I make Phosphine ( see my profile ). I won't go into specifics, but it involves the continuous conversion of white Phosphorus to 20-25% red Phosphorus ( with heat ), and then reacting the slurry in very high strength Phos acid at temps of 300 degrees with superheated steam sparging, according to this patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US3371994A/en None of the required conditions seem unlikely to be found on Venus, so I would suspect a geological process, rather than bio-decay, as the cause ,IF it does turn out to actually be Phosphine.

So this dark matter 'grid' would be a geometric field that 'fixes' trajectories of test particles. Sounds an awful lot like the geometric field of space-time 'fixes' trajectories along geodesics; also known as gravity. But since you want to modify GR to account for the observed galactic rotation curves, are you, in effect, proposing MOND ( Modified Newtonian Dynamics ) gravity? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

Where is the overstatement? (I don't intend that as a belligerent observation, but a genuine query as to what you think was overstated.) They do not 'headline' the possible evidence for life - the title speaks of the detection of phosphine They refer in the abstract to the apparent presence of phosphine. They detaill the abiotic routes to phosphine they have eliminated and note that a biotic source is suggested through analogy with its terrestrial production, not via any demonstrable pathway. They searched carefully all current databases for other possible chemical species that might have been responsible for the transition signature. They discuss at some length within the paper and the supplementary material what abiotic processes they have considered and why they have rejected them. They caution that other phosphene transitions should be sought in order to solidfy or disprove their belief that phosphene is responsible They note that "Even if confirmed, we emphasize that the detection of PH3 is not robust evidence for life, only for anomalous and unexplained chemistry." Where is the overstatement in all that? i genuinely don't see it.

I had this thought which bugs me: "If absolutely nothing existed, reality wouldn't exist either. Therefore, absolute nothingness cannot be real. And thus, something has to exist." Thoughts? Can it stand as a logical statement? Why do you think there might be something instead of nothing?

One way to approach a difficult problems is to break it down into small steps ie substitute a series of lesser questions in this case. So we have How many ways can something exist ? I suggest a great many. How many ways can nothing exist ? I suggest at most one. So the substutute question becomes Statistically why are we suprised that something exists ?

The ideal fuel should be: widely available safe to use by a layman cheap portable low in the production of toxic waste as a byproduct high in potential energy that can be released per unit mass Fossil fuels satisfy all of these requirement like no other fuel does. Fossil are a dream, they are perfect. God must have put it here for us to use, how else can you explain its perfection?