Edtharan

Building nuclear plants also needs skilled workers. There are many dangerous substances involved and specialised workers are needed. This means that the lead time for the plants would also have to include training the workers (say around 3 to 5 years). This would be on top of the time it takes to build the plants. Not only that, if we keep on the "Business as usual" for the next 20 - 25 years, it might be too late for the power stations to have an effect. If we had started building the nuclear power stations 10 years ago, it might have been more feasible, but time is against us. 20 years is just too long for us to wait before we can greatly reduce/eliminate carbon emissions from electrical power production. Most conservative models of global warming put the tipping points at around 20 years (or less). And as you yourself have pointed out, the models tend to underestimate the rate that the effect of Global Warming are occuring. If conservative models predict 20 years and their performance is usually to over estimate the time, then it looks like 20 years is not enough time before we need to start making a difference. The problem with open markets is that sometimes they don't always produce the best results. They will usually produce the best results in terms of price, but sometimes price is not what is important. It is not only governments that can effect prices with "subsidies". Businesses can too. If the market is dominated by a near monopoly (say the reliance of coal and oil fired power) in a sector (energy), then these industry giants can have a similar effect to governments by choosing which sectors they support (give loans too, buy shares in, etc). The economic power these large industries wield is large enough to challenge the economic power of individual purchasing (especially if the individual purchases are divided amongst multiple goods/services). As with governments, big businesses can fund end products without supporting the production pipelines to increase demand and raise/keep prices high. They can also put spin on it to make it seem like they are being altruistic. Big organisations would not ignorant of this, so it is very possible that they undertake this behaviour. It makes good business sense in that you are ensuring your market. Also, because an industry might not be completely financially feasible, but necessary (or desirable), it might be necessary for governments to subsidise these industries to bring about the needed change in the market. An example is with the CFCs. It was expensive to change from using CFC to other propellent. So many governments subsidised the change over. Eventually, because the supply chain was developed, the new chemicals became cheaper than the CFCs and it is now more economically feasible to use Non CFC propellants (although in some countries they still use CFC because they didn't make the change). it is like I said, it is not like this kind of action has never been done. And experience with it had been successful in the past.

The Core of the Earth is not magma, but instead made up of a solid iron inner core and a liquid iron outer core. Any conducting fluid that is rotating can develop a magneto effect. As liquid iron is conductive, and the Earth is rotating, this will create a magneto effect.

Actually, I am an Australian. The problem here is not the subsidies (although it is bad for international markets), but the reasons those subsidies were implemented. As you said, the subsidies are for the gain of whatever lobby group happens to be the most influential. These lobby groups don't necessarily have the economy as a whole in their best interests (and they shouldn't, they are there to make a profit after all). usually these lobby groups want subsidies arranged so that their industry stands to make the most profit. In the case of solar technology, the existing power supply companies have a vested interest in current methods (they have money invested in the supply chains for their industry). They also want to appear as doing something altruistic (this doesn't actually mean they actually do something altruistic, just that they need to appear as being altruistic). As the economics of it are very simple and well known, it would not be inconceivable that lobby groups would fund solar technology in such a way as to keep the prices high. It makes good business sense as it reduces the amount of competition for the product, while appearing on the surface to be an act that is an attempt to support the opposition (the appearance of being altruistic). Does the NZ government have any business support programs? If a large company goes towards bankruptcy, does the government step in and help (this has occurred several times in Australia in recent decades). Does the government offer low interest loans to start up companies? Do they offer tax breaks to certain industries? Do they offer rewards or incentives for certain practices? Do they tax some products more than others? Is there any government own industries (like telecommunication industries, power companies, infrastructure, etc)? These are all ways of indirectly subsidising industries. Lets take this hypothetical scenario: Imagine that a government want to encourage the use and development of solar technologies. They decide to implement a carbon tax as the figure that solar cells are a non polluting source of power. They decide to implement the carbon tax on power industries that are not using non polluting sources. This raises the price of power. But they make non polluting sources exempt from this tax, in an attempt to lower the price of these technologies. This may be hypothetical, but this is actually how most governments are implementing projects like this, so it is not too far from reality as far as hypothetical scenarios go. Now, this is a kind of subsidy. The tax could have been implemented as an across the board tax on power, but then the government could offer a direct subsidy to non polluting power sources. Making a source exempt form tax and making another subject to a tax is exactly the same as an across the board tax with a direct subsidy. Also, this kind of indirect subsidy (tax exemptions), is subsidising the end product. This creates demand for the product without necessarily increasing the supply of the product. This increases the price. Now, it might not look, to the average punter, that if the government offered the Silicone producers a direct or indirect subsidy (for silicon produced for solar technologies), of whatever type, then this would do more to reduce the costs of solar cells and for less price. This indirect subsidy could take the form of carbon tax exemptions. As carbon taxes are being implemented in countries across the world, this offers ample opportunities to help reduce the costs of solar technologies by being smart with subsidies (indirect or direct, depending on the method you particular government uses). They already offer carbon tax exemptions to businesses that attempt to offset their carbon emissions. Why not offer it to companies that are attempting to offset virtually everyone's carbon emissions and in a way that makes the technologies cheaper? And increasing silicon availability reduces prices. Hang on. Earlier you were arguing against moving to solar (and instead moving to Nuclear), because there was unknowns about whether or not technology would be able to develop a good solution. But here you are arguing for nuclear with the proviso that new technologies end up being invented. You are applying a double standard here. According to this last post of yours: It is ok for nuclear to need new technologies (and have the unknowns of it), but not solar. Solar technologies can be implemented quickly with current technology. Price (according to you) is the main (but not only) barrier. You have assumed that it is new technologies that are needed to reduce the costs of solar. I have shown that this is not the case. Government spending (whether in the form of direct or indirect subsidies), can influence the price (yes some governments have a policy of non-subsidy, but wouldn't it be better to subsidies than end up with global warming?). Depending on where the government actually spends their money, they can either keep prices high, or act to reduce prices. I have also shown that current implementations of the Carbon Taxes and the Carbon Tax exemptions (and a lot of other indirect subsidy programs) are the wrong way to support cheaper solar technology as it is not making an increase to supply, but instead increasing demand. Actually there is a limitation on nuclear plants. They require skilled workers, in both construction and operation. There are only a limited number of individuals that would be available to work on them. Other industries pay more, so the only way you could get more skilled workers is to raise the wages for these workers. Also the initial shortage of workers (supply and demand) would crate a job market where by the workers would select the highest paid jobs. This would then form a base line wage and it would be very difficult for any employer to drop this wage later. This would dramatically raise the costs of nuclear technologies if implemented on such a scale. So yes, there is a limitation on nuclear power stations that would act to raise the price of nuclear power. Actually most of the subsidies that are applied in other power generation systems is in the supply chain. Subsidies to mining companies (coal, etc) are exactly the thing I am talking about. Governments are subsidising (directly or indirectly) the supply chain for the polluting power generation systems, but are not subsidising the supply chain for non pollution systems like solar. As Solar does not require an ongoing input of raw materials, there doesn't seem to be a supply chain. But there is in the production of the solar panels and this is where the most influence can be. In a Coal fired power station, the greatest cost is not the plant itself, but the coal needed to keep it operational. In solar technologies, the greatest cost is not in keeping it going, but in the plant itself.

The Earth's core is very massive. It would take a massive amount of energy to stop it virtually instantly and then start it up again just as quickly (Force = Mass * Acceleration or Force = Mass * (Distance / Time) ).

This thread is about "salvaging fact from heaps of BS" about global warming. One piece of BS is that solar power must be expensive, which you seem to have accepted. Solar power is only expensive because of the way governments are funding the solar industry. Again, this is the BS I am trying to correct. We do know that the price will change if the method of funding by the government changes. It is the current method of funding that has actually created the high prices in the first place. It is not like the method of funding that I am suggesting has never been applied before. In many industries, government around the world have created drops in pricing with funding. In the telecommunications industries, most governments fund the basic infrastructure (or once did to get the industry up and running). In the power industry the governments fund the basic infrastructure and this lowers the price of connecting to the power grids. Basic economic theory (supply and demand) states that what I am proposing will work. We have known the laws of supply and demand for centuries. This is not new stuff. No new stuff is needed. There is no unknowns needed to bring about a cheaper price of solar technologies. It is really simple. If you can reduce the cost to manufacture an item, then the end price can be reduced too. An item sold in bulk for a lower price can make more profit than selling a few items at a high price. These principles underline the success of the automotive industries. There is nothing new here. Using the exact same solar cells as today's technology can create, if you can lower the cost of their manufacture (as the raw materials - pure silicon - make up a significant proportion of the cost of the product), then hyou can dramatically lower the end product's price. For each hand that an item passes through you can get a rough estimate of the price if you double it. So if it costs $5/watt for the end user to install a micro solar power system (a household system connected to the grid), and the solar cells had to pass through 4 hands (Silicon purification, Solar cell production, distributor, retailer), then the basic cost to produce a unit would be $0.31/watt. If you could halve that base cost to $0.15/watt then the end price for the user would be: $2.5/watt. For a government to subsidise this for 100,000 units (100,00 watts), it would cost the government: $250,000 if they subsidise the end product (50% subsidy). If they instead subsidise the base product, to get the same results (50% subsidy) it would only cost them: $15,000. That is a saving of $235,000 With that $235,000 saved, they could subsidise far more units, and thus easily meet demand (and exceed it to bring the price down), or fund research into better and more efficient solar technologies, put it towards other power supply sources, etc. By continuing to fund the end product like they are, governments are causing the price of solar technology to remain high. This is old hat stuff. Henry Ford (the car guy) knew this and implemented it. It is not new or require new technologies. There is no unknowns about the technologies to be discovered. ytour arguments against this are jsut Red Herrings. You keep stating that we don't know if or when the pricing will change. I will say this however, if the current funding strategy continues, then unless a new technology comes about that does not use silicon in its manufacture (or another hard to acquire material), then the price will not likely go down. But if the governments start funding the source materials and turn hard to acquire materials into common materials, then the price will go down. Basic economic theory states that it will.

Conductive metal (this means that they were electrically neutral to one another as well). As the plates were conductive, vibrations of any atoms would conduct over the plate and therefore become neutral to the plate. As the plate were grounded and electrically neutral to one another, this accounts for any vibrations of the atoms. Yes, it is important, and as part of the experiment they knew this and took steps to minimise the effects that this could have. Not only that, they could measure the average (which because of the steps they took cancelled to 0). The amount of vibrational energy contained with the plates was not enough to account for the measured attraction between the plates. Also, as vibration is an oscillation (it goes both ways), the net result of any vibration would have been 0 and not caused an attraction between the plates. Basically, in all test that have even been done on this kind of device (the experiment has not only been done once, but many times), can not find any source that can account for the size of the attractive force between the plates. It is actually quite a large force (iirc: 1cm^2 plates produce a force approximately 1/10 the weight of an average mosquito). Use e=mc^2 and that will give you an idea of how massive this force is. It is not huge in terms of the electromagnetic force, but for something that is coming from nothing it is very large. If there was a source of energy that could be creating this size force, it would be obviously seen. Think of something the size a 1/10 of a mosquito sitting in a location 1cm^2 with detection devices able to measure object close to atomic sizes going unnoticed. It is a bit like having an elephant sit on you and not noticing that it is there .

With the balloon example, the surface of the balloon is supposed to a simplification of 3d space into 3d space. As the balloon is 3d (in reality), then the fact that we simplified the 3d space into a 2d space means that the forth dimension of reality will be simplified into the 3rd dimension. (sorry if that last paragraph is a bit confusing) What I am trying to say, is that you can't place galaxies inside the balloon, as they would not be in the same space time as those on the outside. If the 2d surface of the balloon represents 3d space, then the inside (and outside) of the balloon represents time (inside is the past and outside is the future). You seem to understand the analogy with the graph paper as the 3d space being simplified into a 2d surface. The link between them is that you can always wrap the graph paper around the balloon and it doesn't change the fact that the graph paper still simplified the 3d space into the 2d surface.

We can' date=' it is just that you have to abide by the scientific method (and the rules of the forum) to provide evidence to support your claims. If you can't supply evidence, then what you are proposing is not science, but uninformed opinion. You can have that opinion, but it is good if you recognise it as that. The thing about opinions is that everyone has their own . However, these opinions do not necessarily have to be the same as reality. As these discussions are about reality, we need to recognise our opinions,, and leave them behind. Your hands are as tied as mine. It is the nature of logical, rational debate about our descriptions of reality. in the word Universe, the prefix "Uni" means "Singular". This (to me at least), indicates that the Universe is everything. Then you can have other words that describe parts of that whole. We could then use terms like Microverse (small) to specify a part of the Universe. So although we live in a Universe, we are only aware of the Visible Microverse (the visible universe). Our space/time might only be a Microverse in the larger Universe.

Skepticlance, you are not actually looking at my argument. Please take you time and try to actually understand it, ok. I am not saying that we need to create new solar technologies. I am saying we need to address the mass production issues for current solar technologies. There is no research needed and there is no new discoveries needed. You keep presenting the counter argument that for solar power to become cheaper we need new research. But then you post an article stating that the reason we don't have cheap solar technology with current technologies is that the supply chain of the silicone is in high demand. My WHOLE argument for solar technologies is to increase the supply of silicon to bring the price down. In other words, that article you posted as an argument against me, actually completely supported my argument. That is how much of a misunderstanding of my argument you just showed. You have got it 180 degrees around the wrong way. [/rant] Ok, now let me start again. The main problem that is increasing the price of solar technologies is that the supply of silicone is in high demand. According to economic theory, if you can increase the supply (or reduce demand - but we don't want to decrease demand), then you can reduce the price. Currently, Governments subsidise the end users (the consumers who buy solar technologies, either individuals or companies wanting to set up solar power plants). However, this subsidies increases the demand for the silicon. As demand increases, the price rises. This means that actions of the governments is acting to increase the price of solar technologies, not decrease them. My proposal is to change this policy and get the governments subsidising the production of the silicon and the solar cells, not the end user. By subsidising these early stages of production, the governments act to increase the supply of the technologies and this acts to lower the price. We know the demand for solar is there. The price would not be as high as it is if there wasn't the demand for it. The problem isn't new technologies, but one of supply and demand. As demand is not the problem, supply therefore, must be it as it is the only factor left. The solution lies in a different approach by governments. They need to address the supply issue, not act increase demand (the demand is already there). Part of the solution that solar is, also includes storage or alternate sources of power. The technologies exist today (again, no research or hoped for breakthroughs are necessary). Here is a list of possible ones (not that I am suggesting that any one in particular would actually work better than the others): Hydro power: Either as damns or as pumped water as a storage for excess solar power. Fuel Cells: This is probably the most unknown because it hasn't been applied in large scales before. But the technology does exist to try it out. Geothermal: By its self it might be problematic in supplying all the power needs, but it could be used as supplemental generation for solar. Wind: This has been shown to be economically feasible in some areas. Although improvements are likely to be made, this is, in its current state capable of supplementing solar. Coal and Oil plants: Yes. These could be used, but not as main stream power, but instead used to take up the slack when Solar is not efficient (evenings and at night). Using various scrubbing methods, these plants could be made cleaner, and as solar will be taking up the majority of power, there would be less over all pollution (we might not be able to eliminate all pollution but we can try to minimise it) Nuclear: Nuclear has some issues (both real and imagined). But it could be used to supplement Solar at night (etc). Batteries: This is probably the most expensive off peak solution and might really only be used in local situations (like a domestic house), and not for industrial needs. Thermal Storage: This used excess electricity from solar (or even direct solar itself) to store energy as heat. This heat is then used to generate steam for turbines when the sun is not shining. None of these require new technologies to be implemented. Some are more expensive than others. Some are more efficient than others. Some require more land space than others. Some have political ramifications. Some have environmental issues. None are perfect. None can be a total solution. However, all could be implemented using today's technologies.

Thanks. Actually it used to be my job explaining science to the general public. A fully agree with this. Science is all about discovery, so if I (and most likely the other members of this forum) actually could contribute to some new science, I would be very excited. Even if I didn't get any formal recognition for my efforts. Just knowing that I contributed, or even just knew someone who made a significant contribution to science would be an awesome prospect. In a world of conflicting ideas, personal beliefs and measurement errors, you need a methods to sort out the incorrect ideas from the correct ideas. This is the Scientific Method, part of which is the peer review process. The scientific method is designed to be an reality check. Essentially, if someone presents an idea, then this is checked with what we known about reality (experimentation and evidence). If it fails this reality check, then it quite obviously is not describing reality (it is describing something, but it just is not reality). Science is about constructing a discretion of Reality. With the scientific method, you first have to show that your idea is at least as good a description of reality as we have already got. It is quite simple, if a new description of reality is not as good as the description we currently have, then why should be use the inferior one? The person who understand a new idea better than anyone else in the world, is the one who came up with it. This means that they are the most qualified person to seek evidence that supports their idea. This is why the burden of proof is on the person proposing an new idea: Because they are the most qualified person to do so. Imagine that I can up with a new idea about physics. But I felt that the burden of proof was on you. But, you don't actually understand exactly what my theory is, so you collect the wrong evidence and so my theory appears not to be valid. But, if I had gathered that evidence then because I know the theory, I can collect the correct evidence that properly represents my theory. But that is not all the scientific method is. That is just the first step. The next step is the peer review process. This is where you present your theory, along with the evidence that you have gathered that represents it. Then everyone else tries to find a problem with it. They need to examine it from every angle that they can, challenge you to support your conclusions and the evidence that you collected and test it against reality. If your idea survives this process, then we can say with a fair degree of confidence that it is correct. But, always, you must be willing to accept, that if evidence comes along that disproves your theory, then your theory must be wrong (but it still might be the best we have). Look at it this way: The scientific theories we have today are the most inaccurate, except for all the ones that have come before them. It means we can never be 100% certain that a given theory is correct, but we can say with 100% certainty that is is better than the one it replaces. But to get that confidence, it needs to go through the "trial by fire" of the scientific method and peer review. The reason that I am still asking the same question is that there is nothing in your original explanations of your theory as to why a particular pairing is accepted (and why others are rejected), and that you haven't actually answered this question at all. It is a valid question, and the best answer you have given to date is: It doesn't matter". Sorry. You presented your theory on this web site which is about science and the debate (peer review) of scientific theories. But then when we actually apply the scientific method to your theory, you come out and say that it is not what we should be doing. You even asked us to review it. As Mooypoo said, the definition of "Species" is a well known definition. It has to do with living organisms and their offspring. It is sometimes used as an analogy (but analogies are not facts, they are little stories to aid communicating an idea). Unless you are claiming that Subatomic particles, or the gravitational force has a genetic code, then you are using this either incorrectly, or as an analogy (in which case you can't present it as evidence). I suppose you could be redefining the word, but that is an entirely different process that has to occur, and is not physics, but linguistics. Also, if you are redefining the term "Species" you need to first communicate this new definition before using it in a sentence. Imagine this: If I said: "The sky is green". Then later try to explain that all your objections where you claim that the sky is really Blue are incorrect because I redefined the word Green to mean Blue, it doesn't make me correct. It is just bad communication. Species refers to living organisms. You have made an unsupported assumption here. You claim that gravity is a force. But, it is also geometry. All other forces can be described by the exchange of force carrying particles. But when gravity is treated like this, the force of gravity goes to infinite (because the force carrying particles also produce gravity, so these need force carrying particles and these produce gravity... and so on). However, if you treat Gravity, not as part of the "family" of forces that they others belong to, and treat it as the geometry of Space/Time, then you don't get these infinites. In other words, Gravity seems to be fundamentally different from the other forces in this respect. Including in in the "family" of other force therefore seems to be an incorrect assumption. If gravity is not in the same family as the other force, then it would need a different duality (based on my heuristic understanding of how you are grouping things into "pairs" - as you haven't explicitly stated the rules with which you assign entities to a pair). But according to what I understand of your theory, there is actually nothing that Gravity, as a geometry of Space/Time, can be paired with. This breaks your theory. Of course you seem quite willing to ignore this evidence (as I have presented this several times and you are quick to dismiss it without actually providing a reason to dismiss it). As far as we know this is absolutely incorrect. If gravity could interact with the other forces, then we could configure these forces to effect gravity ("Interact" means both parties act on each other, that is what the "Inter" actually means). As we can't do this it means that the other forces can't act on gravity. Also, if gravity could act on the other forces, then we could see effects of gravity on the other forces. Again, there is no evidence of this, and if Gravity did have such effects, then we most definitely would have seen them by now (there are people who do these kinds of experiments). Remember the scientific method. First you must show that your theory is a least as good as what we have now. Well this "Gravity interacts with the other forces" proposition is not as good as what we have now as it makes prediction (ie that we should see the effects of this interaction), but we don't see what is predicted. Instead what we see is what we would get if Gravity didn't interact with the other forces. You have grouped Gravity in with the other forces as part of a family. But, using your analogy of what family is: Gravity, if part of the family would appear to be a foster child. I get it. It is just that the evidence disagrees with you. How dod you reach this conclusion? What evidence do you have that I am actually a human being? I could be a super intelligent artificial intelligence running on a top secret computer in some desert bunker. Or I might be an alien that has hacked into the primitive communication systems of this planet. Or I might be the brain of a rat wired up to a computer. What evidence do you have to support your claim that I am Human? This is your problem. You have made assumptions based on what you think is correct, but you don't actually have evidence to support that claim. As a scientific community, we follow the scientific method and this requires that you need evidence to support your claims. It has been repeatedly asked of you to support your claim with evidence, but each time you dismiss the need for evidence and claim that the burden of proof is on us. Just because you think differently does not mean that it is better. I can guarantee that people with mental illness think differently, but I bet you wouldn't consider them as thinking "better". In summery, your entire theory is based on logical fallacies. That is it is not a rational argument. I will list the major ones: 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking What you have been doing is only accepting the evidence that supports your theories but ignoring evidence that disproves it. 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost When evidence is overwhelming against a particular argument, you come out and state that the argument was not actually supporting your theories. This is called moving the goal posts. If you first present something as supporting your theory, and then change that later when it is shown not to support your theory, then that is called moving the gaol posts and is a logical fallacy. 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy You like yuo use analogies. But the danger here is that you end up getting caught up within your own analogies. You start to base conclusions off the analogies instead of off evidence. This lead you to crate the false analogies (one such is your use of Species and family). 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy) Burden of proof for a theory lies with the person presenting that theory. The burden of proof against a theory (disproof) lies with those involved in peer review. We have presented evidence against your theory, so we have full filled our part of the burden of proof. You have yet to present any evidence to support your theory. The burden of proof is on you. 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty You have used this to justify your position. You claim that because your approach is new, it must therefore be correct. This is clearly wrong as in those wil a mental illness will think differently from anyone else and even you would not think this "new approach" would be a better one that yours. Of course, it might, but it has to first prove that it is better than the current one (or at least as good). 6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_(logical_fallacy) This appear to be what you have based your theory on. You have found some things that match your idea (ie: pairing and using combinatronics - yes, your idea is not new. It is actually a well known field that even has its own name ), and so because you have found a few examples you have concluded that all things must follow this pattern. This is called composition and is a logical fallacy. If you are going to reach this conclusion, you have to show evidence to support your conclusion, not just show the examples that you used to get the idea in the first place (and most of these examples are actually wrong anyway). You have 6 major logical fallacies in your arguments. These need to be addressed. Otherwise you entire theory makes no logical sense.

The statement: "infinity is proven by the existence something rather than nothing" has not been proven (and the fact that it has been disprove seems to have been lost on you). This is not a statement of fact as you have implied, but a statement of opinion. I do not disparage others from having an opinion, as long as they don't present it as fact. If yo can provide evidence as to what the evidence against your opinion is wrong, and provide evidence that supports your opinion, then you can use it as fact, but not until then. As there is evidence that disproves your claim, and evidence that supports that Something can come from nothing, until evidence comes along to contradict it, it can be taken as fact.

As you have pointed out, Nuclear will take at at least 20 years to get operational. However, contrary to what you have said, Solar and Wind are available now and give a return on investment in around 10 to 15 years (with a lifetime much longer). Even if Solar and Wind gave an investment return in 20 years, it would still be better than Nuclear as by that time Nuclear would only be starting to get going and will not have been able to give a return at all in that time. Given that it takes around 5 to 10 years for a return on Nuclear we can compare the returns side by side. Solar/Wind 5 to 10 years start up 10 to 15 years return on investment 15 years minimum time for return 25 years maximum time for return Nuclear 20 to 25 Years Start up 5 to 10 years return on investment 25 years minimum time for return 35 years maximum time for return So at best Nuclear would only give us a return if Solar was at worst. Your conclusions are based on incorrect assumptions. You have assumed that: 1) Solar/Wind is more expensive than it is. 2) Solar/Wind will not be made cheaper by increasing mass production. 3) Solar Wind must be implemented in the same way that current power generation is Let me address these points in turn: 1) The figures you are using for the pricing and efficiency of Solar is years out of date. Current figures (and posted in this thread) show that the price of solar using new methods of production, would be capable of production at a price comparable to that of current power production costs 2) Historically, when mass production is increased, then prices come down. Look at Mobile Phones, the prices have been dropping fast. Also computers, cars, food, etc, etc, etc. Based on historical precedent, Mass production (and increases in mass production), will lower costs. 3) Solar power (and to a lesser extent Wind), can be implemented in a micro generation system. The generators can be made small and cheap enough to be installed into a suburban home. It is also easily scalable, so that you can go from the micro generation up to full large scale plants (like today's power plants). The advantage of scale that current day power plants have is due to the way they work. Solar, being made from cells, can be more easily distributed. This give the advantage of being able to position plants near where they are needed most. This dramatically lowers the rate of loss due to transition, and so actually increases its efficiency. It also accounts for the demand of total area that the plants would require. As the area is not concentrated in one place, and can co-exist with other types of infrastructure, the land that it takes up does not necessarily have to be acquired form else where (as a nuclear plant would). As you 3 main assumptions are shown to be incorrect, then your conclusions (that solar/wind would be less effective than Nuclear) based on these assumption is also incorrect.

No, it would have to bee stationary and moving at the speed of light in the same frame of reference. Those equations are applied to a single frame of reference. If you take a different frame of reference then you have to put in new number to the equations. As the equations are applying to a single frame of reference, then the equations state that the object must be moving at the speed of light and also be stationary for that particular frame of reference. I didn't mention the frame of reference because I though it was obvious from the equations that they were referencing a single frame of reference. The maths are wrong, so the conclusion from them is also wrong. You can't have an object, as determined form the same frame of reference, be travelling at both the speed of light and be totally stationary at the same time. You have causality backwards here. The languages are not a by product of the binary logic of a computer, but instead the product of our language and the way humans think. Originally all computers were programmed using machine code, however, this is difficult to do. So programmers made another language that was easier for them to read, but mapped directly to machine code. This is called Assembly language. Machine code did not "create" this language, but instead it was an application of the ability for a computer to map one set of abstract symbols to another set of abstract symbols. However, the computer only defines one set of these abstract symbols, not the other. If you are correct, then it would have to be that the computer defined both sets of abstract symbols, as by your statement they were by products of the computer. Howver, the second set of abstract symbols was specified by humans, so this measn that the computer did not specify the second set of symbols. This further confounds your proposal because the Assembly language was also found to be too complex fro people to fully understand. So programmer created a further set of abstract symbols that mapped to the Assembly Code symbols, that mapped to the Machine Code symbols. It is the last layer that we use when programming a computer, as it also give several advantages (as the symbols are abstract we can change their mapping which allows us to take the same program in a high level language and compile it for a different underlying hardware/machine code). If you are correct, and the assembly language was a by product of the base computer, then each language level would be dependant on the level below it. This would mean that even with the high level languages, you would not be able to use it to code for a different underlying set of hardware. As this is not the case, it disproves your proposal. A computer is a Simple Turing Machine, the job of a Simple Turing Machine is to map one set of arbitrary symbols to another set of arbitrary symbols according to a set of rules. However, a computer is more than a Simple Turing Machine, it is a Universal Turing Machine. The difference between a Simple and a Universal Turing machine is that the Universal Turing machine is capable of implementing any Simple Turing Machine (hence why it is called Universal). This means that a computer can map any set of arbitrary symbols onto any other set of arbitrary symbols. It means that there is a virtually infinite derived mapping rule sets (it is not infinity in reality as there is not an infinite amount of space in computer memory or processing power). So, this means that you have to explain why the mapping, if it was not a by product of humans and only a by product of the logic of a computer), that we have is so well suited to human usage, with virtually no variation (evolution requires variation, and because there has been so little variation, evolution could not have been at work). You keep repeating this phrase, and then listing conclusions you have made from your theory. This sentence is not proof of your assumptions In fat, this is saying (paraphrased): "Evidence that contradict my pet assumption does not matter". Evidence that contradict something is the most important evidence there is. If there is evidence that says I am wrong, then it means I am wrong, no matter how much evidence that I can pull out to says I am right. You can prove that something is wrong, but you can never prove that something is right. Your proposal has been proved wrong. Many times over. This means that it is wrong. Just stating that because evidence disagrees with you, then it "does not matter" is just constructing a fantasy world, a delusion if you will. Let me put it to you again why contradictory evidence matters: You decide to cross the street. You make the assumption that because you looked one way and didn't see a car, then it means that there is no cars coming. However, because you didn't look at all the evidence (looking both ways), then you don't really know if your assumption is correct. But because you have already made that assumption and thinking that any contradictory evidence "does not matter", you step out into the road. But, the contradictory evidence that was there (ie a car coming the other way from where you looked), you end up getting hit by the car. You have looked in one direction (seen that there exist dualities between certain things), and come to the conclusion that there are no cars (that everything has a duality and that more complex things are a combination of these dualities). However, you have not looked the other way to see that there is a car (that there exist thing in the universe that have no duality at all). As you entire theory is based on the assumption that duality exists in all things, then a single piece of evidence that exists that shows that something does not have a duality, disproves your entire theory. I put forward that gravity does not have this duality. You said that because your theory was right, that it did. But that is not actually providing evidence against my argument. That is a bare Assertion logical fallacy. In other words the only reason for one to accept your theory, is not because reality is like that, but because you say it is right. And reality be damned. Sorry, there is no evidence in reality that Gravity has a duality. As your theory require there to be duality in all things, this means that there is not duality in all things and your theory is wrong. Unless you can provide evidence that shows that Gravity does have a duality, then there is no amount of evidence that you can present that will confirm your theory, as this evidence (Gravity not having a duality) completely disproves it (and thus must be addressed before we can continue).

It does. First you claim that Something can't come from Nothing, but then when it is shown that something can come from nothing, you then claim that it must therefore have been something in the first place. You have used your original assumption (that something can't come from nothing) to disprove the evidence that it can. But the evidence actually disproves your original assumption, so how can it be used as a argument against the evidence? your argument is called a: Bare Assertion logical fallacy. The only reason that one accepts your assumption, is that one first accepts your assumption. If you start from the position: Is there any evidence for either argument (Something can come from nothing, or that something can't come from nothing)? Then you find that there is evidence that supports: "Something can come from nothing". The thing is, there is no law that states that the Universe must make sense to Humans. As the equations are a description of the evidence gathered from reality, I would say that the equations are important. But lets ignore the equations, like you said. Id ther any physical evidence that something can come from nothing? Yes. The Casimir Effect. In this, two electrically neutral plates are placed very close to each other. As gravity between these plates is negligible, we shouldn't see any attraction between them (at the distances involved, direct attraction between the atoms is also negligible). However, we do see a force between the plates that attempts to pull the plates together. But, where does this force come form? Well, the only place it can come from is when particles hit the plates. As this experiment takes place in a vacuum (it can never be a complete vacuum, but we can come close) there will be little or no force from atoms colliding with the plates (and that can be factored in too). We know that if enough energy is concentrated in one location, that it can form a particle/antiparticle pair. However, we can also measure the amount of energy within the device and can see that there is not enough energy to produce enough particles to create the observed force between the plates. However, if we assume that the energy of space is subject to the uncertainty principle, the we can work out that there will be energy that comes from nothing in great enough amount to produce particle/antiparticle pairs. Now, the big question is does this match with reality? Well this is where the maths comes in. If the theory underlying the uncertainty principle and the particle/antiparticle pair production aspect, then this should give a force between the plates of a very specific amount. As we can measure the force, this gives us a way to check the theory that according to QM and the Uncertainty principle, something can actually come form nothing. Based off actual experiments, the forces on the plates matches the forces predicted by the theory. This means that the Uncertainty Principle and QM comes to the conclusion that Something can come from nothing, and it has been experimentally confirmed. This means that there is evidence to support the assumption that Something can come from nothing and that the opposite assumption has evidence against it. It may not make sense to us mere Humans, but then there is no law that states that the Universe has to make sense to us. Since the equations are based off experimentation and observation of reality, and have been modified to conform to reality, then those equations are probably a good description of reality. The Equations don't "allow it", the equations describe what reality allows. As the equations make testable predictions as to the behaviour of reality, we can confirm the accuracy of the equations as a description of reality by performing experiments. The Casimir Effect is one such experiment that has been done and disproves the assumption that Something can not come form Nothing. It is you that is erroneous. The Equations predict what we think will occur. Experiment confirms these predictions. Firstly, the Uncertainly Principle is not only applicable to particles, the same maths can be applied to space and time. Secondly, it is not the total energy that creates the uncertainty in a particle, but the particle itself. The higher the energy of a particle the more momentum it can have (the uncertainty principle relates to energy and momentum is just one aspect of the energy that a particle can have). However, it is the accuracy with which you know the energy, not the amount of energy. So the uncertainty in position of a particle relates to how certain you are of its energy, not the total amount of energy it has. But knowing that it has a lot of energy means that you are more certain of the energy it has, thus you become less certain about its position. Also, if you know that it has only a small amount of energy, this is also being more certain about its energy, thus you will be equally less certain about its position. I am not sure what you are really saying here. The mathematics used have been tested against reality and been shown to match it. If you think that these mathematics and the experiments that show that they work in prediction what will occur in reality is not what you are talking about, then you seem to be saying that you don't care if your theory matches with reality. If this is the case, then perhaps you really are trolling as the purpose of this discussion was to discuss what occurs in reality.

Spectral lines are caused when electrons in an atom decay to a lower orbit. When they do so they emit very specific frequencies of radiation. Each atom has a very specific set of spectral lines. This allows us to identify a particular atom at a distance. This was use to good effect when the element Helium was discovered. When astronomers looked that the sun they could account for all sets of spectral lines except one set. They postulated that this was due to there being a new element, so they named it after the Greek god of the sun Helios (Helios -> Helium). Not only that, based on the spectral lines they were able to specify the properties of that element, and then later found it here on Earth. So, spectral lines are extremely specific. So specific in fact that they can tell us about the properties of an atom. Now, when astronomers look at the light from distant stars in other galaxies, they notice that the spectral lines didn't match up. There were two possibilities: 1) The laws of physics in distant galaxies are different to the laws of physics in our galaxy 2) There was something going on to change the spectral lines. Further analysis showed that the lines weren't all that different, and that the difference was that the frequency of the spectral lines were either a very few shifted towards the higher frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum (what is called "Blue Shift"), and by far the majority were shifted towards the lower frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum (Red Shift). Now we know that Electromagnetic Radiation consists of Waves, and we know that when a source of waves is moving towards you then the perceived frequency will be higher, and if the source is moving away from you then the perceived frequency will be lower. This is what we are seeing with the light from distant galaxies. This effect is called the "Doppler Shift". Hang on, but you just said that there is no Doppler shift. But the spectral lines proves otherwise. We can clearly see shifts in frequency of the spectral lines, and the only known method to cause this is by movement of the source relative to us. Using the mathematics of relativity (which is also need for Global Positioning Systems, so we know that the maths is correct, or the GPS wouldn't work), we can work out the speed of those galaxies. Further more, GPS is very relevant as the Red Shift/Blue Shift actually occurs and can be measured (and is one of the factors that needs to be accounted for). A further example that proves that Doppler Shifts do occur between moving objects was with the Huygens probe that was sent to Saturn's Moon Titan. There was an error on board the orbiting space craft which meant that the antenna designed to receive signals form the Lander didn't work. However, there was another antenna that could receive signals, but it operated at a different frequency that the main one. As the second receiver operated at a different frequency, it would have been like tuning your TV into one station in an attempt to watch a completely different station. But, the Lander and the Orbiter were moving at a different rate relative to each other. By adjusting this speed, they were able to take advantage of the Red/Blue shift (the Doppler effect) to change the frequency that the Orbiter received the signal from the Lander. This meant that they could now receive the signal from the orbiter as the frequency was Doppler shifted to a frequency that it could receive. This proves that the Doppler shift for electro magnetic waves does exist, as if it didn't we would never have received the data from the Huygens probe on Titan. If the Doppler shift was only an illusion, then it could not have allowed the Orbiter to receive the signal from the Lander. So your claim that the Doppler shift is only an illusion and doesn't really exist is completely refuted by the evidence that exists.

This is the reason that I support wind and solar. Yes, there are other technologies that might be far better than either wind or solar, but wind and solar exist now. Price is an issue, at the moment, but with the right economic support (supporting the manufacturing pathways not the end users) can bring the price down. The main reason that supporting the production pathways will be better than supporting the end user is that each time the product passes through a set of hand, the price increases. This means that you will get more value for your money by supporting the early processes, and that it will also have a much bigger effect on the end user's price. Plus, with support in production, it becomes more feasible to over produce and this will bring the price down further. Finally, if the support for the early production is done the right way (government or partially government business), then the government can recover their costs over time (around 5 to 10 years) and it will then effectively not cost them anything (and they might even make a profit, decrease unemployment and create whole new markets , they wouldn't want to do that now would they ). And, after they have established the markets, they can sell off the business in privatisation if they so desire. This kind of thing has been done with telecommunication companies and power companies (well they weren't actually set up to do this, but it was done anyway) in countries all of the world before now (and still occuring). So it is not like this kind of business arrangement has never been implemented before now, it is a well known approach. But the thing is, we know that solar and wind can work, we just have to do something to bring the unit price down or make the equipment produce more power for the same cost. Then we can start to look into the unknowns for different sources of power.

The gravity of the star that a Dyson sphere would be around, would far exceed the gravity that the galaxy would put on it. However, a p[roper Dyson sphere that completely blocked out the light from it's star would be orbitally unstable. Any small perturbation (from a nearby star passing close to it) could send it out of control and plunging into the star. Also,over time a Dyson sphere would eventually radiate the energy of the start that it surrounds. Because the Dyson sphere traps all the light and heat from the star, that energy has to go somewhere. As the energy can't be destroyed (it can be used, but then that energy still exists), then it will eventually make its way out of the dyson sphere. We would then be able to see this radiation (most likely as infra-red radiation). This means that Dyson sphere would not be Dark, but Hot and emitting infra-red radiation.

No you misunderstand. You are applying the very same assumption (that something can't come from nothing) that this refutes to prove it wrong. It is like saying the sky is not blue because it is not green. It just makes no sense. It is not just matter that can appear from nothing. Energy, as well as space and time can appear from nothing. If the same equations that allow matter to appear from nothing are true (and they have been shown through experiment to be not untrue), then applying those same formulas to space, energy and time also allows them to appear from nothing. Now, if those formulas could not be applied to matter as well as space, time and energy, then certain physical laws would actually produce one kind of effect. If it does then it would produce a different result. Experiments have confirmed that the results show that it is the second case (that those formulas apply not only to matter, but energy space and time as well). The only conclusion is that because these formulas allow matter, energy, space and time to appear form nothing, and the result of experiments confirm that this is the case, it means that the Universe can actually appear from nothing (and it can return to nothing as well). Now for the reasons it does apply to space and time and energy. First of all, energy is easy. Einstein's formula E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2 (or it's simplified: E=MC^2) states that Energy and Mass are related and can be converted from one to the other (which has been confirmed experimentally). Now the uncertainty principle states that if you know the position of a particle you are uncertain as to it's momentum (the way it is moving). This too has been confirmed experimentally. But, Relativity states that Space and Time are the same and combined into a Space/Time. This too has been confirmed experimentally (GPS systems need to take this into account or they would not be accurate). Now, if we have an absolutely know Space/Time location (say an infinitely small singularity), we are certain as to it's space and time. However, this means that we are completely uncertain as to it's energy. If we are certain of its energy, then we must be uncertain of its Space/Time extents. When these are applied together, what comes out is that space, time, energy and matter can all appear from nothing.

Also E=MC^2 is not the true equation, it is a simplification of the equation. It is like me saying (with W = F x d) that I can Show that W = F because in the situation d = 0. Because d = 0 we can simplify the equation, but this only applies in the situation where d = 0. If d does not equal 0, then that simplification is invalid, and any conclusions I came to because of only looking at that simplification will also be invalid in the case of d <> 0. As the full equation is: E^2 -(pc)^2 = (Mc^2)^2 Where: E = energy M = Rest mass p = momentum c = the speed of light So the simplified equation that you used only applies when the momentum is 0 (it it is not moving). Also, because you substituted a variable V for c, then it only applies when the variable V is equal to c (and only when V = c). In any other cases, you conclusions are invalid. They are correct, but only when something is not moving and the velocity is the speed of light. Can you see the problem now? You can't be both stationary and moving at the speed of light can you.

Well sort of. According to the Uncertainty principle it can. There can spontaneously arise enough energy in a location to create a particle pair. These then have to annihilate very quickly and go back to nothing. So yes, something can be created from nothing.

One of the advantages of solar is that it is far easier to use in micro generation This means that you can have much smaller generating plants scattered across the landscape. Not only that, because you don't need huge buildings to handle it, it also means that these solar power plants can co-exist with existing infrastructures. For instance, if you think of the size of your roof (mine is flat, but it is likely yours is sloping so only really consider half your roof area). Now multiply that area by the number of houses (as a rough estimate) in Queensland. Does this exceed (or even just come close) to the area needed that you stated. The other advantage of micro generation is that you can put these plants close to where they are needed. This means that the losses from transmission are greatly reduced (as it is the distance the electricity has to travel that incurs those losses). These facts mean that your arguments against solar don't actually apply to it, unless we use a system that solar does not take advantage of what solar can offer but continues the problems that we are still struggling to overcome today. no it isn't. We have no evidence that room temperature superconductors can actually exist. We have theories that take what we know about superconductors and tries to extrapolate from them and tell us how to make these room temperature super conductors, but theories in the past have failed to achieve room temperature superconductors. Therefore any research into room temperature superconductors is really a gamble, and one with hidden odds. We think we have worked out the odds, but we have lots out in the past. Yes. IF we could develop a room temperature superconductor, it would make a big difference. But the problem is that we don't know how to, and we don't know if it is actually possible to develop one. So if we spent billions of dollars and decades trying to develop room temperature superconductors and at the end we found it was actually physically impossible, then all that money would be wasted and we would be out of time to even attempt to implement something else. Room temperature superconductors area gamble, as with all the other research in power generation technologies. And the stakes are high: Our very way of life (no not Armageddon, but a lot of what we take for granted will be greatly effected). We know that solar will not be a perfect solution, but we also know that even if it fails (ie be able to supply all out power needs), we will still have some measure of our current way of life. In other words, we know the odds and we known our stake in the gamble. With Room temperature super conductors, we don't know the odds, and we are not exactly sure the size of the stake.

It is to do with Air resistance. If you were to fall in a location without air, you would continue to accelerate until you hit the ground. But with air, you sort of have to push it out of the way as you pass through it. This creates air resistance and slows you down. The faster you are moving the more air resistance, and the more massive you are the more air resistance it takes to slow you down. These two factors reach an equilibrium that we call "terminal velocity". So a light Ant will have a much lower terminal velocity than a human because the human is much heavier. This means that even if we fall from the same height, a Human will usually be travelling much faster than an ant when they hit the ground, and therefore the human will be injured more than the ant. There are other things you can do to increase your air resistance than just making your self lighter. The most common way is to increase your surface area. This means that you have to push more air out of the way and so it will slow you down more. This is what a parachute does. It massively increases the surface area of the person who jumped out of a plane. So much so that their terminal velocity is low enough for them to survive (usually without injury). Fur is also another way that you can increase your air resistance when falling. A furry animal will fall slower than when it is shaved. In some climbing animals this is enough to usually protect them from major injury or death.

Actually Pioneer, what you are not considering is that each Animal has 2 copies of each Chromosome and that some traits require the trait to be one both copies of the chromosome. So if the Mare has the trait, and the Stallion does not, then the foal will not have it. Because the traits that make a winner is not just down to 1 or two traits, and that the plethora of traits that make a winner might occur doe to completely different genotypes, then this means that there is no guarantee that any two horses will necessarily produce a better offspring.

For starters, Fire is not an Element, it is not even an object. It is instead a process. What do I mean by Process? Well Fire as we know it, is the glow of a gas as it radiates thermal energy. Elements are the different atoms. Stable combinations of Protons and Neutrons in the Nucleus and electrons surrounding the nucleus. Those elements that you are talking about have been discredited for over 100 years. They have been shown not to exist as that. It is an out dated and disproved concept. Reality is not like that. Also, those "Elements" that you stated are not the only "Elements" that people have proposed. In ancient China there were 5 elements, not 4. They were: Metal, Wood, Fire, Water and Earth. In Japan they also have 5 elements and these were: Earth, Water, Fire, Wind and Void. So who is right in their list of elements, You, the ancient Europeans, The ancient Chinese, the ancient Japanese, or the Scientists? There is evidence that contradicts, you, the Europeans, the Chinese and the Japanese. But none contradicts the Scientists (in relation to the elements being stable combinations of protons, neutrons and electrons). So the others fail the Reality test, but the scientists, don't. The golden rule is: If reality contradicts something, then reality wins. reality contradicts all those theories about elements except the scientists one. Therefore Reality Wins and the scientists are right. Mine is: Reality is always right. No, they don't do this to find the "Fingerprints of life", but to understand reality. Life is a process. They already know the basics of that process and they know it doesn't occur with fundamental particles. They just don't have complex enough interactions to by themselves. When scientists search for the fundamental particles, it is not life they are searching for, but how reality works. This is why this is a strawman argument. What you have done is claim that scientists are looking for life in subatomic particles, and then argue that this is not where they will find life. Guess what, not even the scientists think they will find life there. They are not looking for life in the subatomic realm. This also means all your arguments against science and their search for life in the subatomic realm is flawed and does not actually apply. Their premise is wrong IF they are searching for life in the subatomic realm, BUT since they AREN"T searching for life in the subatomic realm, then that argument is completely invalid. What are those 7 laws. Could you put them in Point form. I do not know what 7 laws you are talking about. It is more complex than that. First, you have to show that the set of basic rules actually correspond to reality. Then you have to think about complex systems and emergence. Emergence is where the processes that go on in a system give rise to "meta" rules that govern the large scale behaviours of the system. For instance, take these rules: 1) Using a Chess board (or something bigger, but has the same grid structure). 2) Apply the following rules to each square in turn. 3) If exactly 3 squares adjacent to a square have a counter in them, then place a counter in the current square if it doesn't have one already. 4) If exactly 2 squares adjacent to a square have a counter in them, then do not remove or place a counter in this square. 5) In all other cases remove the counter in this square. Now, these rules are fairly simple, but they form a complex system. From those rules, can you say whether or not a Universal Turing Machine (you computer is one form of Universal Turning Machine) can be created in that environment? No. You can't. Also, how could you create one. There are no logic gates in there (the core principle behind computation). Actually, it has been shown that you can create a Universal Turing Machine using those rules, but it is not a simple thing. First they had to use the rules to create objects/patterns that could move around (they called these Gliders). Then they had to create something that could produce those Glider patterns without being disrupted in the process. These they called Glider Guns. Next they had to modify the glider guns so as to be able to be turned on and off. Finally, they had to arrange those glider guns and gliders into patterns that interacted with each other. So the first order of Rules are the ones that I wrote down. The next order of rules, the first level of Meta Rules, was the behaviours of the gliders and glider guns, the next order of Meta rules was that of the interactions between within the system of gliders and glider guns interacting. Lastly the final order of Meta Rules was the program that the had the Glider/Glider Gun computer run initially basic maths, but they have "Written" more complex program for it to run, including an implementation of the very rules that allowed them to create that system in the first place (in other words, it was complex enough to simulate itself ). What I am getting at here, is that you assumption: "if this theory and rules work to this set of basic(first,original) families, it will work to all other succeeding families too." Can not just be accepted as fact. It has to be tested and confirmed first. Until then it is an Unfounded assumption, not fact. Base your arguments on facts, not assumptions presented as facts. Actually you do. You stated them as evidence that supported your theory. In fact, it underpinned the entire argument you put forward in your last post. Now, however, once it was shown that this entire argument is flawed, you are Shifting the Goal Posts (an other Logical Fallacy). Not only that, you are Cherry Picking (logical fallacy) again. You are only accepting evidence that agrees with you, but if there is evidence against you, you dismiss it as something that: "does not matter at all". This was the basis of my counter argument against you. That you have been cherry picking the data to fit your concepts, but ignoring the evidence that falsifies your position. It is not just science that this is important in. It is important with law as well. Let me give you and example: Say you were on trial for a robbery. You might have visited the scene of the crime a short while before it happened (it might have been a friends house). This measn they find your finger prints and DNA at the scene of the crime. However, you friend had Security cameras installed and there is evidence on them that you didn't commit the crime. What would you say if the Judge dismissed that camera footage as something that "does not matter at all", because it contradicted their initial premise that you committed the crime based on the fact that your fingerprints and DNA were found at the crime scene. Now, can you understand why it is important to look for evidence that contradicts your position, more so that evidence that support it? You presented an argument that, in that post, you argued was the very basis of your theory. But I gave evidence that disputed it. Not you are saying that that whole argument was not really your argument. If it wasn't your argument, then why did you present it at all? And why did you present it in such a way as to appear to be the cornerstone of your entire premise? But you haven't used the Big Bang theory at all. You have used some concoction of your own. What you have presented as being the Big Bang theory is not the Big Bang theory as is understood by the rest of the World. This is called Strawmanning and is a logic fallacy. It does if there are none and your theory states that there should be. It matters greatly. If anti gravitons existed, then we should see the effects of them. There is an opposite charge and we see this occuring and the effects of it, and not all matter has electric /magnetic charges or is even effected by it. But all matter has and is effected by gravity. So if there is an equal and opposite to gravity, then we should have seen it by now. This is a big hole in your theory. Your theory states that they should be an opposite to gravity, but there has never been any observations where by there has been an opposite to gravity. Not even when we look throughout the universe with telescopes. Not 1 example in a sphere roughly 16 billion light years in radius (32 billion light years in diameter). Not 1 . That is a big volume and not 1 example. And that volume is the entire known Universe (ie Reality). This means that there is no evidence to actually support this claim, and as your theory states that there will always be an opposite, then it kind of disproves your theory. Sure, IF your theory is correct, then that would be an acceptable conclusion (based on what I know of your theory), but here is the clincher. Does your theory describe actual reality? Well according to the evidence I have presented, it doesn't. You can have a completely consistent and correct "theory", but if it doesn't correspond to reality, then it is not real. I am not saying whether or not your theory is self consistent, or that it is mathematically correct or not (although I have concerns over its mathematical correctness). What I am saying is that there is plenty of evidence that states that your theory is not consistent with Reality. This is from personal experience here. It is possible to create a perfectly consistent model and for it to be completely mathematically correct, but it can still not correspond to reality. My experience of this? I am a Computer game Developer. A Computer game must be completely self consistent and mathematically correct (the mathematics of algorithms), or it wouldn't run properly (we call them bugs). Each and every computer game is a self consistent and mathematically correct world. But there are many things that go on in computer games that don't correspond to reality. So, just because someone develops a theory that is self consistent and mathematically correct, does not mean it therefore has to correspond with reality (or otherwise Mario and Luigi are going to have to stand trial for mass murder - poor goombas ). Reality trumps everything. If something disagrees with reality, then reality wins (so long as you are trying to describe reality). Evidence. Supply evidence, not ask for faith. If you are presenting a new theory of creation, it has to explain all observations made so far. If 1 single observation contradicts it, then it can't be correct. The current Big Bang theory explains all observations made so far (but this does not exclude future observations disproving it, it is just that any new theory would also have to explain at least as much as the current theory does). But when I do, you dismiss them, also, you dismiss the argument that you presented that the evidence contradicts. It is just like me claiming that I have a red ball in my left hand, then when my left hand is open and no red ball is shown to be there, that I then state that I didn't actually claim that a red ball was in my left hand. If you claim something, and that claim is show to be false, then just accept that your claim was wrong. I have respect for you and your arguments, but surely you know that this is not a good argument. You are using an Equivocation Logical Fallacy to construct a Strawman Fallacy (btw, those links are only to the wikipedia entries on logical fallacies, you might want to read them, but you don't have to). Cherry picking is a logical fallacy. It is where you only accept evidence that agrees with you and ignore evidence that proves you wrong. It is like the court case scenario I presented earlier in this post. You have to look at all the evidence, not just take the evidence that you want.

It is a bit like asking: What is north of the north pole? If you travel to the North Pole, then all directions (on the surface of the Earth) is south. There is nothing North of the North pole and there is not Further North that you can go. The North (and South) poles on the Earth are like a Singularity. The Big Bang is a singularity, as is the "Edge" of a Universe (finite or otherwise). It means that there is no "outside" the Universe as this would be a location equivalent to North of the North Pole.