Leaderboard

See, this tells me you don't understand some of the fundamentals of science. If you posed an hypothesis that was sound, that you could support with evidence, that you could build a model upon to make successful predictions, AND that we could find no fault with, no flaws that falsify the explanation you've given, then it wouldn't be a threat to our way of thinking. It would BECOME our way of thinking, because it would be a well-supported explanation on its way to becoming a theory. Can't you see that? We've been pointing out mistakes, so how could your idea possibly be a threat?

This was my confusion as well. In deep diving, nitrogen narcosis has been described as like being drunk and rather pleasant, hence the slang term "rapture of the deep." ( @Genady would probably know more about that.) That led me to think there would be less distress than CO2 or the old gas chamber with cyanide. Also unclear is how exhaled CO2 is handled with the mask method being used in Bama. Metabolism is still producing CO2, so it has to go somewhere. I think gaseous nitrogen, though not a noble gas, is functionally inert in our respiratory cycle.

Strange. I would have expected CO2 to be far more uncomfortable than nitrogen, given that, at least as I understand it, the breathing reflex, i.e. a sense of suffocation, is driven by the concentration of CO2 in the blood rather than the level of oxygen. Have I got this wrong or are there other effects at play?

Are you talking about the BB? It was NOT an explosion. If you're talking about stars forming from clouds of gas, what about that behavior do you find objectionable? You can visualize it? Given the gaps in your science knowledge, I suspect your "visualization" is filling those gaps with whatever makes the most sense to you, which is no way to do science.

Yes. So many that you need to be more specific about what you're looking for. From what I've read, size is only a small factor. The way the various regions are "wired", and the ways the regions communicate with each other is much more important.

There's likely as much arsenic in the water you stew it in. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25526572/

In the Vat household, where some are very particular about their brew, it is believed that loose leaves in a steel tea ball (or infuser) are the way to go. None of that weird bag taste or potential polyester nanoparticles. And brew times not to exceed five minutes - after that, tannins (the source of bitterness) tend to build up. Milk or cream is considered an abomination. As for listening to Yanks on arcane practices like adding salt, you should remember that we once had a famous tea party which resulted in very salty tea... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

Just today have learned of the passing last week of Peter Schickele, musical humorist without peer. Am starting with Iphigenia in Brooklyn, then perhaps Oedipus Tex, and then all week sampling from the oeuvre of PDQ Bach, the last and least of Bach's children. and Iphigenia found herself within a market place and all around her fish were dying, and yet their stench did live on.... He will be missed. I don't know how well known he was overseas but I imagine our UK members who liked, say, Anna Russell, Dudley Moore, or Spike Jones, would find Prof. Schickele to their taste. A snip from the Washington Post obituary... Jokes meant for experts on composition were intertwined with gags that required only a cursory knowledge of music — the interruption of a serene baroque adagio with a few bars of boogie-woogie, for example, or an overlay of “I’ve Been Working on the Railroad” on a J.S. Bach prelude. The works of P.D.Q. Bach often parodied the titles of popular classics. Among them were “The Seasonings” (after Haydn’s “The Seasons”), the “Sanka Cantata” (after J.S. Bach’s “Coffee Cantata”), “Oedipus Tex” (after the Sophocles fable, but set in the Wild West, with Billie Jo Casta and Madame Peep among the characters) and “Hansel and Gretel and Ted and Alice” (a conflation of the Humperdinck opera and filmmaker Paul Mazursky’s satire about swingers). P.D.Q. Bach’s instrumentation offered twists of its own. Although pieces such as the “Pervertimento for Bagpipes, Bicycle and Balloons” used commonplace objects not typically heard in an orchestral context, others required Mr. Schickele to build instruments of his own. When he conceived the early “Concerto for Horn and Hardart,” for example, he knew the title — which alludes to a then-popular (but now defunct) chain of self-service restaurants — would only work if there were a “hardart” to play alongside the horn. So he made a nine-foot gizmo loaded with cartoonish wind instruments (kazoos and ocarinas), zany percussion (buzzers, bells and mixing bowls, as well as exploding balloons), a set of automat-style coin-operated windows and a coffee spigot. For his P.D.Q. Bach shows, Mr. Schickele adopted an alter ego, Professor Peter Schickele, head of the Department of Musical Pathology at the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople. Typically, he arrived late and with maximum commotion, his shirt untucked, his tuxedo in disarray, and wearing work boots. Until the early 1980s, his entrances often involved swinging to the stage from the balcony on a rope, knocking over as many music stands and chairs as possible; in later years, he would run down an aisle and belly flop onto the stage, or be lowered in a basket.... (end snip) I will always treasure the memory of attending one of his concerts (in that concert hall, he rappelled down a wall, iirc), which included such masterpieces as Throw the Yule Log On Uncle John, My Bonnie Lass She Smelleth, and Only He Who is Running Knows. There was also a piece that incorporated somewhat unconventional symphonic instruments, one of which was called a wind-breaker....yes, pretty much what you'd think. RIP. Or even better, having some big laughs with Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and all the other classical musicians he loved to satirize.

I read every comment and all I get is "You're Wrong!" No one has the courage to share what they believe is the truth. I am not arguing or standing behind the standard explanation and theories. It's all just information as far as I am concerned and I won't consider any of it TRUTH until the day its proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you disagree with the current explanation of the beginning of the universe then publish your theory and set the record straight. I am simply cutting and pasting what is printed on the websites that belong to several of the major Universities and institutions that you and others received your degrees from. Anyone can disagree with anything but can you prove it is wrong or are you a contrarian like many of the people on this site?

I understand your need for mathematical proof. With all due respect, I believe you already have the math you need to understand the initial vortexes of my hypothesis. It is Einstein's math that, by the way, is the same math you reversed in time to come up with the big bang concept. Instead of an explosion creating atomic matter, Einstein's direction in time would have created collapsing and condensing of clouds of energy particles being forced toward atomic, star, spiral galaxy, and quasar ignitions. (mesotron solves the unified field theory puzzle). Sadly, I cannot mathematically prove mesotron ,but I can visualize it because I see it everywhere in NASA and other images of the universe i.e. spiral galaxies and quasars. You can see the hour glass structure everywhere you look. All that being said, The vortexes that feed the core of mesotron are mathematically provable by Einstein's math. Also I have performed an experiment that clearly demonstrates the airfoil affect created by a spinning pyramid. I have attempted to create the affect, thermodynamically, with air, but I could not generate nearly enough heat up through and out of the pyramid or near enough cold projected toward the airfoils to collapse the hot air into vortexes. Mesotron's force, mass and power is what creates and holds everything together. The Higgs field math you have created is a glimpse of masotron. When we harness the power of mesotron, guess what, no more need for fossil fuel. I realize I am in the land of giants, but I am not here to steal the goose that lays the golden eggs. I am here to give you Fort Knox. I am an old man not moving as fast as I used to. My wife and I had doctors appointments yesterday that took all day. Got home and saw that you all had responded and I gave pzgfw a quick lighthearted response to say that I do understand and completely agree with big bang beginning @ star ignition and moving forward in time. Got something to eat, took care of my home dialysis, came back to my computer and....locked out . That was a pretty quick reaction. Seems extremely defensive. Maybe my hypothesis is a threat to your way of thinking. After all, I am going with Einstein's original instinct. Before he was swayed by politics. I am sorry that I cannot give you mesotron mathematically. All I can do is point you in the right direction and hope someone with power and influence will eventually see the truth in what Einstein was trying to say. "We cannot solve our problems using the same thinking we used when we created them." Einstein regards gray

I agree with the big bang theory except for the big bang part. And the magic gravity that some how collapses a cloud of gas into star ignition. I know B.S. when I see it.