Area54

Who are the "they" you refer to? Certainly not any responsible scientist documenting their work in a peer reviewed journal. Are you being misled by second rate science reporting?

Ankers suggestion is an unsupported assertion. However, you rebuttal contains three unsupported assertions. Do you wish to put any meat on the bones of those assertions?

You noted that the word genus is a human invention. You overlooked the fact that the same is true of the word species. Classification systems are artificial throughout. They are there, as you noted, for our convenience, to aid understanding. Evolution is real: microevolution and macroevolution are in our heads. Macroevolution is a term used by many researchers whose skills and knowledge are way above my pay grade. I suspect they are well above yours also.

My background would be geology rather than physics. I mention this because if you view geology with a degree of disdain as some physicists do this next argument will likely be irrelevant to you. Plate tectonics is an amazingly succesful model for the behaviour of the upper levels of the planet. It explains a great diversity of observations that previously were difficult to account for. This portion of the wikepedia article on plate tectonics summarises some of the highlights of the theory. Can you tell me at which point plate tectonics became something other than plate tectonics?

Beavers have been reintroduced into Scotland. I believe a handful of bird species have also been reintroduced. There are moves to reintroduce wolves and lynx. These efforts to restore a recent, or damaged ecology are, I think, ethical. Attempts to restore damaged ecologies by cloning species that are now extinct would be analogous to this and would, therefore, be ethical. I am less certain about attempts to clone species whose environment is no longer extant and which would therefore be confined to laboratories, zoos or small nature reserves. That said, I really miss the ammonites!

I didn't express any explicit view as to what you were here for. I was, initially, working on the presumption that, since this is a discussion forum, you were here to discuss ideas. This statement of yours certainly seems definitive: However, your definitive statement was strongly contradicted by multiple posts in which you explicitly criticised the philosophical positions of others. That implicitly revealed aspets of your own philosophy. By "like-minded souls" do you mean people who agree with you, or people who wish to discuss matters of philosophy? I had read all the posts in this thread. I believe I was following the multiple stringed discussions takin place. I chose to comment on some of your views. That's what happens on discussion forums. I had no idea you were on this forum previously. Frankly, that would have been of no interest to me, even if I had been aware of it. I thought some of your observations were ill founded and I disagreed with them. That's what happens on discussion forums. That kind of defeats the purpose of a discussion forum. I haven't made any personal attack. I have criticised several of the things you have said. That's what happens on discussion forums. The closest I have come to a personal attack is suggesting that your thinking seems to be muddled. If you have an alternative explanation for the ambiguity and misinterpretation in your posts you were and are free to present it. I think you have missed quite a bit here. I have criticised some of those comments and beliefs you have expressed here. (That's what happens on dicussion forums.) I have not attacked you personally. If you believe I have you should report it. I realise that when ones own ideas are attacked it can sometimes seem like a personal attack. That is not the case here. I went so far as to explain the friendly aspect of calling something someone said "bollocks". IF I had wanted to make a personal attack I would have written something more like "Nonsense, you are an arrogant pompous forum rat." For the record, you don't seem to be arrogant, or pompous, or a rat, but you get the idea. I think judging arguments and observations on a discussion forum is a very good idea. You may not have invited conflict, but you implicitly invited criticism of your ideas. (It's what happens on a discussion forum.) I criticised them. You decided, incorrectly, that I was attacking you. I don't know you. All I know are your idead. I repeat that those ideas appear to be the product of muddled thinking. That's not a personal attack. You accused me of being lazy. You didn't accuse me of appearing to be lazy. The first, accusing me of being lazy, is very close to a personal attack. The second is not: it invites an alternative explanation for observed behaviour, or comments, or position. The polite way for one to deal with either is to address the claim, which I did earlier in this post. At the moment we cannot do it because: You are unable to distinguish between an attack on ideas/comments and an attack on the person expressing those ideas/comments. You refuse to read the specifics of my attacks on your ideas/comments. You have gone off on a tangent of misinterpretation and personal attack. Edit: Who is the "Hyper" you refer to in the first quote in this thread? Are you confusing me with someone else? Surely not hypervalent_iodine? I would be honoured to be mistaken for she, but I am just plain Area54.

It is a discussion forum, not a blog. You are probably infringing the spirit if not the letter of the forum rules. I didn't pounce. I commented on your posts in order to develop a discussion. If you don't want to discuss and are uncomfortable when challenged then this may not be the best home for you. (By the way, in the parts of the UK I circulate in, referring to something as "bollocks" is a friendly way of saying it strikes one as nonsense. I'll be more clinical in future criticisms.)

Pretty much. I've given you specifics for a handful of points. I anticipate that you will reject my rebuttals and so I see little value in deconstructing every one of your weak arguments. Instead i have offered you a generic summary for all of them. If you disagree please go ahead and tell me what is wrong with my analyses of your views thus far.

No. Obviously it is essential you marry someone of a different ethinic group and have as many children as possible to increase the pool of potential donors. Any other course of action would be morally reprehensible and ethically indefensible! /face-palm retort.

Hello Dave, you seem to have very muddled thinking. Perhaps that is a consequence of your refusal to consider sources other than your own experience and thinking. Newton, who was both a philosopher and scientist, remarked "If I have seen further it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." In contrast you seem determined to dig a hole for yourself and then climb in. Eise asked you for a source to support your contention that " Philosophers have always seemed to choose morality as a favorite subject." Eise was not looking for, as you seem to think, some " assumably internet links", but studies that analyse the subjects about which philosophers write. Or, involving a lot more work on your part, a look at half a dozen or a dozen well known philsophers in which you demonstrate that they have, in their writings, favoured morality over any other. Instead you ask us to place some confidence in an opinion you have taken up without regard for proper investigation. I don't think anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of philosophy is likely to be foolish enough to bite on that hook. Yes, I can see that you wouldn't want your thought process to be contaminated by evidence, or by reasoned argument conducted and reported by others. It is certainly an approach that will limit the risk that your worldview is challenged by reality. There is an advanced concept in philosophy that is applicable here. It involves deep epistomological and lexical considerations. It is summed up in the single word, "bollocks".

My remark, which you have quoted, that I would defer comments on other examples until you had clarified your intent, was meant to convey to you that I would defer comments on other examples until you had clarified your intent. I'm not sure why you didn't get that. You appear to accept that there are no major issues with Earth, Ceres or Mercury. Will you confirm thatis so? If not, specify what you find unsatisfactory about my earlier rebuttals. Will you also now state clearly what your basic point is? Are you - as your title suggests - claiming an unknown source of planetary energy? Or, something else? Pluto You reported this quote in the OP. The author of that quote was either misinformed or lying. For example, here is an extract from the website Mysterious Universe. Note that, contrary to the claim in your quotation, there is expectation and speculation that there will be evidence for geological activity onn Pluto. So when you catch wind of scientists credibly speculating that Pluto might have plate tectonics, “who cares?” might feel like a reasonable response—but this is actually a very important question. The existence of plate tectonics would bring us very close to proving that Pluto has an underground ocean kept warm by geological activity, much as Enceladus does (the key difference being that Pluto is nearly five times as large as Enceladus). If you had bothered to follow the first link in the above quote, it would have led to this blog, which in turn would have led to this paper. What does this paper have to say? The concluding remark of the abstract is this: "If New Horizons finds evidence of ancient tidally-driven tectonic activity on either body, the most likely explanation is that Pluto had an internal ocean during Charon’s orbital evolution." In short your link both anticipates geological activity on Pluto and provides the most probable explanation for it. Once again, your attempt to introduce some mysterious unknown falls down in the face of evidence. In this case, evidence you have provided yourself, but not bothered to study. A bit sloppy don't you think?

I don't know if you noticed, but we are in the General Philosophy sub-forum. Science, Latvian embroidery and market gardening are optional.

Arguably equal, or greater risks may come from comets. Such risks are of two types: Centaurs Long period comets Centaurs The Centaurs, sharing chracteristics of asteroid and comet, have unstable, eccentric orbits between Jupiter and Neptune. They are larger than NEAs, meausred in 10's of kilometres.(The largest identified so far is around 260 km in diameter.) Their unstable orbits and interaction with one or more of the giant planets deflects them towards the inner solar system (and Earth crossing orbits) where they break up. Recently researchers have pointed out that the resultant debris is still very large and more than one component is likely to impact the Earth. Such impacts could continue over a period of around 100,000 years. Long Period Comets Most comets that visit the inner solar system are short period comets, with periods from a few years up to 200 years. Halley's comet is an example. They are thought to have originated in the Keuper Belt. There are orbits are reasonably well known. In contrast long period comets come from the Oort cloud and have periods measured in hundreds, thousands and - in some cases - millions of years. The danger they present compared with NEAs is threefold: Larger than most NEAs Traveling two per three times faster and therefore possessing much higher kinetic energy Unknown until they are already en route, giving very little reaction time for mitigation

I am not sure if this is universally true, but my understanding is that rocks fail only in tension. That tension may be a local effect caused by compression, but the point of failure is in a zone of tension. Is my understanding correct?

To those concerned about their height, remember this: what counts is what's in your head, not how far it is from the ground.

I also have adblocks in place much of the time and this has no dsicernible effect either way. 502 Gateway a few minutes ago and three or four attempts to get access.

So! A wasted childhood.

While you may be correct, I believe it would be precipitate. Granted the OP is unclear (I described it as word salad) amd ZZ's attitude appears uncooperative, even arrogant. However, if ZZ is largely self-educated he may have found it necessary to develop his own terminology to describe his ideas. He would, naturally, be protective of both his terms and his ideas, and frustrated at our focus on the former. I think he should be afforded the opportunity to answer the questions put to him thus far, to define his terminology and to present his ideas to the forum properly.

In no particular order: Would you mind calling it a hypothesis, rather than a theory? I'm reasonably sure it is not a theory. Could you provide relevant citations for your first two bulleted points? On the third bullet point, are you trying to describe the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? If you were meaning Many Worlds, then in what way do you think it has any bearing on a multiverse hypothesis? (Hint: it probably doesn't)

No one is especially interested in your riddles. If you have something as genuinely novel and interesting as you claim then lay it out for us. Contrary to your assertion your terminology obfuscates rather than clarifies. If you don't wish to accept that and don't wish to have your ideas considered then that is your choice. As far as I can see there is only one in this thread.

Nailed it. Edit: So, did Dimreepr

What I did find looked remarkably like word salad. I noted, in particular, the absence of any maths. These two features - word salad, no maths - are diagnostic for cranks. If you don't wish readers to suspect you are crank, don't post like one. If there is something of substance there it is not my responsibility to "piece it together". It is your responsibility to write as clearly as possible, using conventional terms as far as possible and carefully explaining any new terms, or old terms that are used in a new way. Of course, if you don't want your ideas to be treated seriously you could continue as before. If I want to indulge in word play I'll do the Telegraph crossword. I don't want it watered down. I want it 'teched up'. That means using clearly defined terms and coming to the point, instead of playing riddles - and coming to the point would involve some relevant maths.

Well, it is true that there were no words in your post that cannotbe found in a dictionary, the combination of some of those words is unusual in physics. Consider, as an example, your phrase " convergent counter-spatial centripetal charge". If this were a common, or even occassional physics phrase, then we might expect to find some examples on Google Scholar. But there are none. What about dropping one word: "counter-spatial centripetal charge"? No luck. Finally, when we get down to "centripetal charge" Google scholar returns three hits. That's 3 hits. In contrast, if we choose a phrase like centripetal acceleration we get 18,500 hits. That's eighteen thousand five hundred. If physicists are not using such phrases and you are discussing physics, perhaps you should try a change of terminology. If you think it is sufficient to let other terms "speak for themselves" then you haven't been paying attention to the way science has been reported for the last century or two. I thought I might try and throw you a life-line, so I looked for your phrase on DuckDuckGo. Success! Four, that's 4, hits! The trouble is they were all made by you. You might want to take the advice of swansont, a practicing physicist - use the language of the science correctly.

Unfortunately the period appears to be the second half of 2017!

Likewise about two or three hours ago. Slowish loads at present.