Leaderboard

Slightly less useful; you couldn't even fertilise the rose-beds with it.

The Google results for "Spin Conjugate Dynamics" gives ~10 results and the top 3 are from the author of the paper (and I think that other hits are referencing the paper). That's...not good. IMO it's not the writing quality, as such, it's fiction vs non-fiction.

I've not run across these terms before. The Google results for them suggest they are made up.

No. There's no physics there, just some terminology tossed together, devoid (as far as I can tell) of any real meaning.

You're missing the point of the books, science deals with technology, which advance's, and Moses deals with emotion which is much the same. Imagine a world where technology is happy for us? Now imagine a world where happy is the wrong word to use...

The idea that bronze age people had technology superior to ours is beyond absurd IMO. There is not even any evidence that Moses was a real person that I am aware of, let alone evidence that he wielded advanced technology. If you have evidence that shows I am mistaken, I would be very interested. It would have to be very compelling evidence I suspect.

I don't see any physics in there. It's word salad.

It seems Motl's comments are on an earlier (2019) claimed proof of Kabalaika. The recent claimed proof seems to have a different approach to the one described by Motl. By the way, there is a revised version. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13838111 Indeed. The first version was a bit complicated for e to read, but i can certainly pass a judgement on the latest and much more elementary version https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13838111. Will give it quick a read.

Incredible video of landing from on=board cameras...................... https://phys.org/news/2021-02-nasa-video-perseverance-rover-mars.html The video clip, lasting three minutes and 25 seconds, showed the deployment of the parachute and the rover's touchdown on the surface of the Red Planet. "These are really amazing videos," said Michael Watkins, director of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "This is the first time we've ever been able to capture an event like the landing on Mars." phys.org/news/2021-02-nasa-video-perseverance-rover-mars.html

He is essentially saying what I have being saying...nothing, as per your definition is impossible and has not nor ever did exist....or as aptly described by the following... Thorham...I'm no scientist, nor philosopher. In fact like Krauss, I have drawn the ire of philosophers at times, when quoting such lines as "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know" In actual fact I don't like being labeled anything, other then hopefully, a lover of reason and the scientific methodology, as corny as that may sound. In reality I'm an old retired maintenance Fitter/Machinist/Welder that loves to learn what I can about physics and cosmology, and sometimes regretting that I left it too late in life to do anything about, other then badgering those more knowledgable then myself on forums such as this. I see it as awesome that cosmologists can take us back to t+10-43 seconds with some confidence, and relay with logic how things progressed from there. I'm equally in awe, how we can also speculate with some degree of knowledge and data, how scientists like Krauss for example, can even delve into the abyss of whatever nothing existed before space and time, as we know them. I find it far more logical and reasonable to accept such speculation as the quantum foam, then other unscientific solutions, that first arose with ancient man. I admire the logic and science of scientists such as Krauss and Dawkins, but my most respected scientist, and probably the one that got me all fired up and into this stuff is the late Carl Sagan. I have his "Pale Blue Dot" narrative hanging up in my man cave. Anyway nice debating with you and look forward to more when such time may arise.