JacobsLadder

Okay which claim: 1) You say vast amounts of money are being put into fusion research but this is not true, relatively speaking. Look at the Manhattan project and the resources that entailed. 2) If the entire science budget of Earth was directed into fusion research, with everything else put on hold, then we would have a very good chance of cracking it. These are the two you quoted so which of these two do you want me to defend? I'll start with 1) You told me around $22 billion dollars in current money. Okay, no reason to doubt you. I stand corrected. It turns out it was a pittance - who'd have guessed. 2) It turns out I was wrong again because no matter how much money and man hours you throw at a project it doesn't make it faster. Thanks Yup, I got it all wrong. Are we done?

I particularly like the 'my cosmology' bit and how you misrepresent what I have said and then try to 'tell' me what my position is. And then the 'You haven't, so can I assume I was correct?' I'm sorry but you are wasting my time.

You are putting words in my mouth. I can't see why you struggling with black holes. They are no more relevant than any other astronomical feature. A projection in line with the holographic principle can explain what we see.

I find sometimes people seem to see things in black or white whereas the truth is a murky grey area in between. This seems to be a case in point.

I wasn't aware I was expected to rebut anything. I thought you might be interested in the story as it is part of documented history. If you feel like arguing on the grounds that your time would be wasted in other fields then I'm not going to engage in that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrelevant_conclusion

You are demonstrating a logical fallacy. It would be nice if you could actually read my arguments before jumping to conclusions.

Yes, this: "The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which conjectures that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected." That is the point I was making. I did indeed mean entropy. The universe may appear as a simulated reality since it is projected.

All you did here is flip around what I said. It has everything to do with the holographic principle. It is how they got the idea in the first place.

During the second world war many scientists had to adapt. Fresh perspectives helped the rapid advances in radar, missile, jet engines etc. Consider the story of the 'cryptogamist ' accidently employed as a 'cryptogramist'. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/blogs/behind-the-scenes/2014/03/26/how-a-seaweed-scientist-helped-win-the-war?fromGateway=true

There is no evidence to support your assertions that cannot be explained by the holographic principle. We already know that the mass of a black hole is determined by its surface area, so it is theoretically possible that we are viewing the universe as projected on the interior of a sphere.

I can't argue with that. Perhaps when the Earth is slipping into a runaway greenhouse effect, we might finally realise the error of our ways.

You say vast amounts of money are being put into fusion research but this is not true, relatively speaking. Look at the Manhattan project and the resources that entailed. If the entire science budget of Earth was directed into fusion research, with everything else put on hold, then we would have a very good chance of cracking it.

A fascinating topic, although I am doubtful these anomalies are indicative of alien life. I suspect what we are seeing is evidence that there is activity beyond the firmament.

So the answer is NO. There is no reason to believe that wormholes exist. It is a silly idea best left to Star Trek.

It seems somewhat hypocritical that your reply includes these sentences: " However we checked and what we found suggests that they are stars more or less like the Sun. " "We can form an hypothesis that they are stars, and we can test that hypothesis. Thus far, for the mots part, that hypothesis holds". "Not for the planets, and not for the dark matter, but that doesn't meet this description" I suggest you read this study: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149885

I think there may be a solution by using antimatter. When we develop the technology to create and manipulate antimatter it will surely become feasible to fabricate atoms to order. Unfortunately, until we seriously invest in fusion technology, it is but a pipe dream.

It seems to me it would be much easier to move the Sun away from the Earth. I very much doubt the scenario will arise but theoretically a network of windmills stretched across the length of the Earth could gradually push the Sun upwards each time it passes.

I am always appraising new evidence. I suggest you take a look at my thread Time to Rethink Earth's Motion.

I think what we are seeing through the hubble telescope are not in fact galaxies or stars. I tend to think that without evidence we cannot assume that we are seeing Suns like our own. The concave sphere surrounding our planet is most likely the firmament.

There is not enough data either way but I tend towards the energy being reabsorbed into the firmament.

Yes, Isn't that what we are discussing?

Correct for larger BHs. But of course BHs over the CMB temperature threshold will get smaller.

Black holes get smaller because of Hawking radiation and eventually disappear. There has to be countless black holes with under 1.5 solar masses.

That concerns gravitational collapse It is not the same thing as black hole evaporation. The Chandrasekhar limit concerns collapsing stars. It is not a factor for existing black holes.