Argent

This is obviously causing you a great deal of stress. I think you have to put the ball in their court. "Guys. I believe vaccinations are not only beneficial, but essential for the health of my children. I appreciate and respect that you have a different view. However, the consequences of that are your problem. They are not mine. You have to decide whether or not you let your children mix with mine over the next couple of months or not. I hope you will decide for, not against, but it is entirely your decision. Now, I have no wish to discuss this further. Just let me know when and what you have decided".

If her really means it to be "mass per cubic metre", then surely the right side of the equation reduces to mass and he is asserting that the "relative passage of time", whatever that means, is directly proportional to mass. Which seems little different from insisting that sunrise is proportional to goose flight. Or may be I am missing something.

If you consider the basic information on mass, diameter, density and probable composition of the four giants in our system you will see that this division is both sensible and significant. Almost certainly, but not to the same extent as the giants. Migration was promoted by gravitational interaction with the giants and drag effects with the protoplanetary disc. The migration has been over for close to 4.5 billion years. Stability came quickly on astronomical and geological time scales. Even although the Late Heavy Bombardment was still ongoing 3.8 billion years ago this was not associated with any significant migration. Almost certainly not. The temperatures close to the protostars would have been to high for the accumulation of ices and gases. Yes. Some will some won't. (I suspect the majority will not.) The orbit of the rocky planet would be changed, probably substantially. While the four solar system giants were doing a lot of moving around and this movement, especially that of Jupiter, influenced what was happening in the inner solar system, I am not aware of any strong suggestion that any giants moved through the system en route to absorption by the sun. I don't know what may have been said back then, but I am not familiar with any reference to a double bump. If anyone can contribute on this I would appreciate it. I find this question similar to asking "If alien bio-robots had been injected into the Earth's biosphere by different alien entities at different points since the late Proterozoic, could this account for the appearance of the major phyla?" That is, your question is grounded in so many assumptions and possibly misunderstandings that it is not practical to answer it. So here is the impractical answer - several hours, but not days. Warning: I am a complete amateur in these matters. Though I have read quite widely on the subject I have no professional qualifications related to astronomy at all. I have tried to convey that lack of formally acquired knowledge by phrases such as "I think that", or "I understand that". If you, or anyone, has data that conflicts with anything I have said please post it.

arc, nowhere in the forgegoing post do you appear to provide what both billiards and myself have requested, a summary of your argument with the evidence for each of the key steps in the flow of logic. You may feel that your argument and evidence are well represented by the many lengthy posts you have made in this thread. I must tell you that such is not the case. What you seem to be doing is attacking the current theory, using Doglioni's work as evidence for that attack. This reminds me of the creationist tactic whereby they think that poking holes in current evolutionary theory automatically proves their alternative explanations must be correct. That doesn't work. It's not science, it's not even a smart debating tactic. Will you now please take the time to present your hypothesis in a nicely structured way with the key evidence linked to each step? If you are unwilling to do so there doesn't seem much point in keeping this thread rolling.

I have tried to work my way through the thread, but have not yet completed it. There does seem to be a lot of repetition of material without it being clear how that material fits into the overall argument. What I would like to see, in addition to the table you have proposed, would be a clear connection between the evidence and each point in the structured argument.

As a side note, today there are only two gas giants in the solar system, Jupiter and Saturn. Neptune and Uranus are more properly referred to as ice giants. All of these, and any others that may have been ejected from the system, or absorbed into the sun, did migrate. It is possible that some did. However, it is extremely unlikely that this did not occur en route to a collision. Not absolutely impossible, but highly improbable. Since we have identified several rocky exoplanets, it seems unlikely they would have been formed by the same "odds against" process. For practical purposes the answer to the question is "no". It might, but since the planet is at that point on a collision course for the gas giant it is rather irrelevant. I suspect that the time required to "sweep up the fluids" would exceed the time available for it to occur, even if it was only the "glancing blow" encounter you envisage. No. The planet would begin to come apart. Since your starting assumptions are flawed your speculation is without foundation and so it fails. I don't understand your reference to a "double-bump" for lunar formation. The current hypothesis is a single bump of a protoplanet we have named Theia striking a proto-Earth. Where is the second bump?

As you say it is a SWEG. I tend to reject it for the following reasons. Planetary migration occurs during the formation of planetary systems, while there is still a significant protoplanetary disc of gas and dust, and before orbits have stabilised. Detailed simulations strongly suggest that the solar system orbits are stable over the next several billion years. Jupiter stopped its migration billions of years ago. I think the latest thinking is that it swopped places with Saturn, ejecting another giant planet from the system in the process. Your stripping of the proto-Earth and related events don't really square up with the detailed geochemistry of Earth, moon and meteorites. Keep guessing. It can be be fun, but I don't think this one worked out.

I have read the thread carefully. I agree with John's comments about the reference to Jews. Other than that the insults, patronising tone and generally bad forum etiquette came from you Ant Sinclair. You could follow Koti's advice and make a formal complaint, but I think you would be better advised to be more direct and polite in your posts, rather than acting like a troll.

Is it paradoxical to ask, why would someone who has learned to read and write and operate a computer post such nonsense as AH, or is it just puzzling?

I am not aware what conclusions have been reached about the long term impact on physiology of low gravity, as on the moon, versus micro-gravity (erroneously called zero-g by some). Perhaps we shall get lucky and find lunar gravity, in combination with reasonable exercise, will be sufficient to maintain long term condition. Does anyone know of any research that has explored this issue?

@CharonY. Are you aware of any studies that examine the practice of abortion in humans arising as a consequence of the same evolutionary pressures that generate it in other species?

Mike, I have read your posts with interest and wish to compliment you on their inherent sincerity. I have the impression you have thought about these factors long and hard before reaching your tentative conclusions. Unfortunately, I found the grounds for those conclusions to be rather weak. Other posters have pointed out several of those weaknesses, but one seems to have been missed. You repeatedly assert that civilisation began in the Middle East and spread out from there. I think the Chinese and Indus Valley civilisations call that into serious question. While the absolute dates may give the ME precedence, I am not aware that those two civilisations, following immediately behind, arose as a consequence of progress between the Tigris and the Euphrates. At the other end of the axis of coincidence that you postulate we find, not only the ME, but the tensions generated in the Far East by North Korea; the potential for serious conflict in the next three decades between the US and China; the multiple flashpoints within sub-Saharan Africa. Focusing on a half century of disagreements centered on the ME seems to be more a matter of the parochial than the coincidental.

So, in its own way, it was illuminating.

However, the conventional explanation does not involve nothing at all, and therefore your proposed alternative does not appear to be reasonable. In what way do you propose that manipulating forces artificially would generate "dark". I don't see any mechanism that would achieve that. Could you explain the details please. I don't understand how you accelerate entropy, or how such an acceleration would explain inflation. Again, could you expand on this with specifics. You seem to be suggesting that others might be interested in developing your idea beyond where you have yet taken it? Do I have that correct. If so, I think you are mistaken. You have offered a very vague supposition, lacking in detail, evidence or justification. It lacks substance. It lacks conviction. It lacks a foundation. Why would anyone else be willing to spend any time developing it. If you can flesh it out a little and provide some supporting evidence or logical argument then there may be some willing to ask pertinent questions that would help you develop it further. At present, though, you are not offering anything of interest. Until you provide some science rather than an agglomeration of terminology, strung together haphazardly, there is little point or need of other posters responding with currently accepted science.

So, a partial solution to global warming, adapting the OP's idea, is to point all the vehicles on the planet towards the sun, then throw away the keys.

The link worked fine for me, but I agree that it would be better, alfa105, if you could summarise your points here on the forum. One quick questions. I believe the Earth's comparatively rapid rotation is partly responsible for its magnetic field. If Proxima b is tidally locked the field may be absent or weak and therefore the flares Proxima is prone to would potentially harm any life on the planet. (Although I am sure someone imaginative could produce a scenario for life on the dark side.) What are your thoughts on that? In terms of delivery, your enthusiasm is very clear. Your English is excellent, but the speed of your delivery combined with your accent makes it a little difficult to follow at times. If you could slow that down by 15%-20% then your energy would still come across and it would be easy for your listeners to follow.

You are so full of schist.

Please provide carefully organised and well presented evidence to support this uncompromising statement.

Or an uneducated one, lacking deep reflection.

Sadly, I believe you. As concisely as I can make it: I held up a mirror to your own arguments, and lo, the Emperor was in the altogether.

Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt. That is precisely why I know you are wrong. My subjective experience trumps yours.

Remedial basket weaving and Latvian embroidery in the 13th century should be OK, I think.

When I read the Rules I thought I saw something about there being no limit to the number of upvotes, but a daily limit on the number of down votes. However, I can no longer locate the rule, so I may be thinking of another forum. Hopefully a mod will clarify soon.

Messed up post. Please excuse.

That is not an invention. It is a suite of scientific discoveries organised in a theoretical framework.