Edtharan

I am not an expert by any stretch, I just know more than you do about it. Ok, my first impression is that you have been Cherry Picking. This is a logical fallacy where by you either unintentionally or intentionally select information that supports your ideas by ignore the information that contradicts your idea. It is human nature to do this, and that is why you need procedures in place to stop this occuring (this is why the scientific methods as the falsifyability requirement). There are many exceptions to your proposition of universal duality. For instance there is Gravity. There is no evidence of a negative change to gravity, there is only 1, not 2 aspects to it. As gravity is a fundamental aspect of all matter, this seems to violate your proposition that there exists a duality to all properties. However, the letters used in the English language are not the only letters in existence. Not only that, even in languages that use the same (or similar) alphabet, the arrangement of the letters can be different. For your theory about the letters, Z must always be the last letter of the alphabet and A must be the first. Not only that, as you propose the rest of the alphabet is derived from these two letters (A and Z). This means that if you change the other letters positions, then you have changed the rules to which A and Z combine. The number 0 was not invented for a long time, long after all the other integer numbers. So, if as you propose, all other numbers were derived from 0 and 1, then how could this have occurred if 0 wasn't invented until after the rest of them. As stated above, the English alphabet is not the only alphabet possible and even then, the English alphabet has not always had the letters in the same order (with new ones coming in and some letters being discarded. An interesting one is: "Ye". Originally there was a letter that has now been lost from the English alphabet that looked like a "b" and "p" superimposed (it was called "thorn" and does vaguely look like a "Y"). This letter was for our sound "Th", not "Y". You might have seen this in many things trying to look like they are from the Middle ages. Things like "Ye Oldde Shoppe" and such. However, it should be pronounced: "The Oldde Shoppe". As this letter is no longer used, the letter Y (which at the time was similar in shape to thorn and was under used) was substituted. Can you explain why metal and wood are a duality? I don't understand why you think they are a pair? Why not Metal and Air, or Metal and Water, Or Air and Wood? There are so many other pairing that could have been made here that I wouldn't consider this a "Pair" as such. This is seem to be one of the biggest incidents of Cherry Picking in your argument. For a long time there was no Male and Female. This "Duality" is really not a very good one. Even today there are many organisms that reproduce asexually (with no eggs or sperm). And I am not just talking about micro organisms. There is a species of Lizard that has only females and reproduces asexually, they have evolved males (and therefore sperm) out of it entirely. What is the difference between living and non living? Living systems are just made up of non living atoms. There was a theory long ago (well not specifically a scientific theory, but it was tested using scientific principles), called "Elan Vital" (which means living force), where they believed that there was some unknown force that made non living matter and living matter different. However, since no experiments have been able to find evidence (either direct or indirect) of this Elan Vital, and that there has been evidence to show that it is not needed for living systems, then this theory has been removed because it does actually describe reality (even though it was a very good and self consistent theory, it just failed on the reality test). Also, this duality between Matter and Wave could just be down to our preconceived notions that matter and waves are two different phenomena. This would be based on the fact that in the macroscopic world, they do appear to be two separate things. But we know that in the realm of atomic and sub atomic particles, what goes on in the macroscopic world is not necessarily the same. Matter and Waves might be derived products of a single object or behaviour. Much as Temperature and pressure are derived products from the motion of atoms. As current theories (and experiments) are supporting this, using an out of date assumption is not very supportive of your theory. Like the Alphabet thing, you are constructing this "Duality" without actually explaining why it is a duality. What is worse, waves are not a duality, but a continuum. Like you have explained, a duality is like Positive and Negative charges, Binary 0 and 1, and so forth. These are discreet values, however,waves are not discrete, but are continuous (they form a continuum). You seem to be using two completely different definitions of Duality (one where there are two states and one where there are two extremes). This assumption can't just be made. You will have to explain why you make it and provide evidence for it. There is nothing in the Big Bang theory that states this, so it actually means that this is your creation and says nothing about the Big Bang theory. Ok, now you are misunderstanding Evolution. Evolution requires 4 things: 1) Reproduction 2) Inheritance 3) Variation 4) Selection The first two means that something (It does not have to be an organism, or even alive), must be able to make a copy of itself and that copy must take its traits from its parent(s). Number 3 means that the copy is not a perfect copy. And 4 means that there is some method that removes some individuals from the group while letting others continue on, and that his must be based on the traits of the individuals. Now, looking at those charts, there is none of this. There is no section in that. If they can combine to make one, the they combine to make all, and there is none that are removed form the group. It is all or none (and as there is, then there can not be none). There is no selection going on, so there is no evolution going on. Again, I am not sure you know what the meaning of "Duality" is. It means that there is exactly Two of something. It comes from the Latin: Duo, meaning two (Duo is actually the name of the Latin number 2, just like our number 2 is spelt "two"). No. At bets all you have done is demonstrate (not even prove) that mathematics is based of a regular pattern. You have discovered that if you lay out numbers in a regular way based on the pattern that the number system is based on, then you end up with a pattern. You have just shown that if you follow a pattern, then you end up with a patter. There is nothing surprising or overly amazing about that, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the big bang or Evolution (or even creationism). This is just plain wrong. There are some many examples where this is not the case. I used gravity earlier, but here is another: Quarks. These subatomic particles come in 3 charges (called Red, Green and Blue because they had no idea what else to called them, I suppose they cold have called them A, B and C, but that is a bit unimaginative). This completely blows this out of the water. You sat that we "always find objects in pairs". As this clearly shows that they don't always, come in pairs, then this claim by you must also be wrong. As your theory requires this statement to be true, then it must also mean that your theory must also be wrong. What about leaves, flowers, bark, heartwood, sapwood, sap, and everything else that goes into making up a plant? There is no evidence that the souls exists, so it can't actually be included in this list. This would make it "Body" with no duality. Hmm, another cause where there is no duality, yet your theory requires that duality always exists. Now this is called circular reasoning. Yin and Yang were created to represent the Dualities that do exist, but then you are using this as a duality to priove that dualities exist. This is a logical fallacy called Circular Reasoning. Cherry Picking. What about Elsewhere, Nowhere, Everywhere? The thing is there are just as many counter examples. It is only if you ignore the counter examples (cherry picking) that you end up thinking that Duality exists everywhere, when in fact it doesn't, and as your theory is about Duality being everywhere, any one single counter example disproves your theory. The game isn't about finding matches, it is about trying to find things that disprove your theory. Only looking for matches is called Cherry Picking (and as I have stated, you have been doing a lot of this), and Cherry Picking is not science. Sure, it allows you to look for what might be a new discovery, but once you have discover something, you have to check that it really is there. The way to do this is to make sure there is nothing that disproves what you think you have discovered. If you find evidence that disproves what you think you have found, then it means that you haven't actually found anything. Dreaming is not a reliable method of observation. Dreaming can't be reproduced, and further more, dreaming is not reality (and as the purpose of science is to discover what reality is , then this is completely useless in determining what reality is). Even then, our senses can be fooled very easily. Our senses don't exist to give us a description of reality, but only exist to allow us to function as an organism. As an example have a look at this: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=490946 . Also, there are many optical illusions that exist (and other sensory illusions too), so our senses are not completely reliable and not very accurate (that is why scientists spend lots of money building complex and powerful machines, so that they can take the place of our senses). Science demands repeatability, so unreliable observations can not be used as they are by definition unrepeatable. Be careful that you are not over analysing something. Over analysing something will lead you to see patterns where none really exist. Also, I don't know those seven laws you are talking about, would you be kind enough to post them here so we know what we are talking about. Threads are supposed to be kept separate (according to the rules of the forum), so just because someone might have posted something in another thread does not mean that everyone who reads this thread will have read the other threads.

This just confirmed point Number (1). The point was that you have not shown evidence against current theory and for your theory, because you have not even presented your theory (otherwise how would we know if the evidence you present supports or denies your theory). Actually you have presented your theory, just not formally presented it. You presented it by the position you are arguing for (and against). If you haven't even shown us your theory, how can we say if it right or not. Yet you ask us to accept your theory based solely on your claim that it is more correct than we currently have. You are asking us to take it on faith that your theory is correct without us even seeing what your theory is. Faith is not science. Further more, the other requirement was that you provide evidence that show the current theory is incorrect. You could do that even without showing us your theory at all. But you haven't even done that. This, is called a Strawman and is a logical fallacy. Which brings me to point number (2) It is not a logical fallacy to do this, because you might not have made any mistakes in your logic. However, it does mean that your conclusions might (read virtually never, but you might have got lucky) not actually be correct. Even then if you were somehow luck and you were correct, because your theory was based on incorrect data it is not a very useful theory because it won't work for any other situation. Showing that a theory is based of incorrect data (or other theories) is one way scientists use to build evidence against a theory. Think of it this way. If you were convicted of a crime you didn't do because the judge based their decision on evidence that was presented but shown to be fabricated (but still convicted you anyway), would you have a problem with that? It is the same with science. If a theory is presented that is based on something already known to be untrue, why would you accept that theory? If I presented a theory that required Pink Unicorns to exist, and there is no evidence for pink unicorns, should you accept my theory? No. If you are claiming to do science you do. However, if you encounter proof in day to day living, then that is observational evidence. If you can then show a definite link between the observations and your theory (ie that the association is not just down to a misunderstanding: as Correlation does not imply Causation - a logical fallacy if you think it does). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem This is an Ad hominem argument. A logical fallacy. You claim that Scientists use "Tricks of the Trade" but then when you state what those trick are, they turn out to what makes it actually work and are not tricks at all (ie finding that if you made a mistake, you attempt to fix that mistake). But to top it off, you yourself use them to argue your point. Seriously. You can't have this double standard. Either you call them tricks and you can't use them your self, or accept that they aren't tricks and you can then use them. An Ad Hominem and a Strawman rolled into one. I do not hate religion because I believe in science. For starters I don't "believe" in science. I understand science and know about logic and rational arguments. It is through this that I know how science works and agree with its principles. I do not "Believe" in it at all, at least not like you are implying as a kind of "Cult" or "Religion". Also, just because someone is religious does not mean that they hate science. I have a friend that is an Anglican Minister and is very much into science. It seems your prejudice is showing. Part of what science does is to question everything. Even itself. First you demand that Science question the big bang theory, but when it does so you claim that it must therefore be wrong. Calling the Scientific Community a "Cult" is called an ad hominem argument and is a logical fallacy. It is also a Appeal to emotion as you are implying that cults are bad (the emotion is fear), and Appeal to Emotion is also a Logical fallacy. This is about my point number (4). The Scientific Method is the tool with which scientist gauge whether or not they are describing reality. The scientific method is a "Reality Check". That is they come up with a beautiful new theory, and the check if it matches with reality. The theory might be perfectly mathematically correct, and right. But if it doesn't actually describe reality, then it can not be called a description of reality. You claim that I don't know what the scientific method entails, but then you use a strawman argument to show that I don't. What you are really saying is that I am not following what you think the scientific method is. However, as it has been shown, it is you that have the wrong idea of what the scientific method actually is. It has also been shown that my concept of the Scientific method is the same as what is called the scientific method be scientists. So, who do you think is a better judge of that is the Scientific Method: You, or Scientists trained in the Scientific Method? Me? I would take those that have been taught what the scientific method is as the ones who know that the scientific method is. I am not stating here weather or not the scientific method is right or wrong, or that your approach is right or wrong. Only that what you think the scientific method is, is wrong. This is your biggest mistake and your biggest hang-up. You can't seem to understand or accept that what you think the scientific method is, is incorrect. Once you understand this, and only when you understand this can we even begin to examine your theory with the scientific method, and only when you understand what the scientific method actually is can you raise objections about it. Until then any argument you present about the scientific method is just a Strawman. A strawman is creating an argument against a position by constructing an incorrect representation about the position you are arguing against. And, as you are arguing against your own incorrect understanding of the scientific method, this counts as a strawman. Yes. This proves that it is not your reputation, not you intelligence, not how mainstream, not how different and not your fame that determines if a theory is correct. But, only if you have evidence for your theory and evidence against the accepted theory. Einstein added in the cosmological constant because he believed that the universe was static. hen when evidence came in that the universe was not static, he realised that the cosmological constant that he had included did not describe reality, so therefore he change his theory to fit with Observed Reality. That is Science, and that is the Scientific Method. Later when it was shown that there was a discrepancy in the observed Reality and the theory, it was found that a term had to be added to make the theory fit with observed reality. This factor that needed to be added was similar to Einstein "cosmological Constant", but not exactly the same (different cause and different size), but was similar enough to call it the same name (it is confusing, I know, but just because it is confusing, it does not make it wrong). That is Science in action. It is attempting to describe Reality, so if theory disagrees with reality then it is the theory that is wrong and they adjust it to make sure that it is a description of reality. What is wrong about that? You might have heard of the old saying: If it ain't broke, then don't fix it. Well when it is shown to be "broke" then you should fix it. Only if you consider the "Book" in this analogy as being "Reality" and "Chapters" as theories. Then this analogy is true. Yes, science will not accept a theory if it is not a description of reality. They suppress the Theories that don't describe reality because the ideology is to come to a description of reality. How long will it take for you to understand this. The purpose of Science is to develop a description of Reality. Therefore anything that is not a description of reality is not included as Science. If I was to create a description of your theory, but I kept adding in bits that were not in your theory, would you or would you not try to remove those extra bits? So If one is attempting to describe reality, would you or would you not want to eliminate those bits that are not found in reality. This is all that the scientific method is doing. You are trying to argue that if something can be show to be mathematically correct, but not a description of reality, then it must be accepted as a description of reality. It is simple. If it is not a description of reality, then it is simply not a description of reality. So my 4th point is: that you don't understand what the scientific method is and what it entails. You just proved it. You call science a Cult (and don't even explain why you think it is a cult), you ask us to accept something as science but then claim that it doesn't and doesn't have to describe anything in reality (ie for it to describe reality it must be subject to testing and produce predictions that attempt to describe reality, but you don't seem to think that this step is important). Hmm, Is rational though wrong? Should we all act insane? Does 1 + 1 not equal 2? I can't remember who said it but: "The most Incomprehensible thing about the Universe, is that it is Comprehensible." Well, we have evolved to take advantage of regular patterns that occur in the Universe. From chemical reactions that is the basis of living organisms, to the regular patterns of Night and Day and to the behaviours of people (language, family, etc). If we therefore take it that "A priori" that there exist regular patterns in the Universe (if none existed, then we would not exist, as we ourselves are a regular pattern of chemical reactions). Then we can use those patterns as the basis of a method of discovering more about them (and more patterns). On such pattern is that if you have two separate objects, and put them together, you have a set of objects that is the value of 2. It could have been 3, but that would not be the patterns of this Universe and so sounds like nonsense to us. This pattern of sets is the basis of all mathematics and logic. We test this each and every time we do any maths, or even observe it occuring in the world around us. Go grab two oranges and place them together and count them. This set theory pattern seems to hold true for every single object and system in the Universe. Of course, if evidence was presented that this did not hold true, then this would be a major discovery and pretty much everything we know would have to be reassessed (and probably end up being a special case of the new theory). So science is the process of describing these regular patterns, and it uses these patterns to aid in the discovery of other patterns. Does this mean that it can't detect things that don't conform to those initial patterns? No. If something was discovered that violated these patterns, then it would stick out (like a sore thumb) from the rest and we would be able to see it. We might not be able to understand it using the initial patterns, but we would be able to see it and know of its existence. So. What if the Ideology of science is wrong? Then the way that the ideology of science is constructed (the process of discovery patterns, and the assessments of new patterns discovered) would make any errors stand out. Science attempts to bring exceptions into the mainstream. Religion on the other hand attempts to marginalise exceptions and hide them. Science is not a religion. Of course, this does not stop someone from constructing a Strawman Argument against Science by calling it a religion or a cult, but to do so is a logical fallacy (and an incorrect representation of what science is). That is a mistake in logic. Which is breaking the pattern of: "1+ 1 =2" that seems (according to all observation, tests, and the fact that we exist) to be Universal. So, by calling Science a religion (the false logic), you are only doing so because you ignore your very own existence (as your existence is based on the fact there are regular patterns, one of which is that 1+1=2). Either you are wrong, or you don't exist, you pick (oh wait if you don't exist, then you can't pick . Here is something that has been shown. Lack of Sleep causes hallucinations. This brings doubt as to the reliability of this method of observation. Part of science is that experiments (tests) are repeatable. If a method of observation is unreliable, that means that it is not repeatable and therefore not a valid means of observation. Not only that, lack of sleep has been show to be hazardous for your health. And besides, due to an injury (unstable shoulder caused by a dislocation) I often have sleepless nights (or night with very little sleep), for days at a time (in fact two weeks ago I had a bad reaction to some new pain medication and didn't get much sleep at all that week). I thus full fill this "experiment" of yours, and I still don't see what you are talking about. Not all mathematics are constant. Would you agree that a Triangle always has 3 straight sides and 3 angles that add up to 180 degrees? Well I can give you an example where this doesn't work. Take a basket ball. Draw a line from one pole (say the valve) to the opposite side. Now using that line as the base, draw two more lines so as to make a triangle. Get a protractor and measure the three angles and ad them together. Do they equal more than 180 degrees? Yes. Also, if you do this in a strong gravitational field you can get a similar response (it is actually less than 180 degrees in a gravitational field). Actually any gravitational field good enough, it is just that here on Earth the gravity is not strong enough to make a visual difference, but it doe make a measurable difference if your instruments are accurate enough (and modern ones can be). But hang on, part of the proof that the circumference of a circle and it's diameter is related by the fact that the angles in a triangle always ads up to 180 degrees. But I have just shown that it doesn't! This is the reason for the scientific method. With the scientific method you have to check it against reality. In reality, because the universe is not totally Euclidean (flat), it means that things like Pi are really more complex than they first appear to be in the limited range of environments we can survive in. If you adjust the theory of Pi to take into account the non Euclidean nature of reality, you can then adjust the theory of Pi so that it is true in non Euclidean space. But this is the very thing you have a problem with, with the scientific method. You don't want reality to force us to change a theory, just because we might have got it partially wrong in the first place (due to the limited ability to test it). A theory is developed based on observed patterns. But these observations don't limit where that pattern might exist, or under what extremes that pattern might be taken to. Experimentation and the Scientific method are designed so as to take and test these patterns under extreme conditions to see if we are only using a simplified (because of the limited environments) theory. If we find that what we observed is only a subset of a larger pattern (eg: Newtonian gravity is a subset of Einsteinian gravity), then we should change the description of the pattern to take this into consideration. Euclidean Space is actually a subset of Non Euclidean Space. The formulas that relate Pi to the Diameter and Circumference (and Area) of a circle only apply to Euclidean space. But this is a simplified version of the formulas that relate Pi to the Circumference and diameter in Non Euclidean space. It can be simplified because the terms in the equations that account for the variations of all the non Euclidean spaces cancel to 0 in Euclidean space. Now, in your mathematics that you presented, you used the simplified Einsteinian: E = MC^2 equation. Because it was implified, one of the terms looked like the term in another equation. You then thought you saw a link between them. But. Because it was only a simplification, when you instead take the equation in its full form, this link disappears and is no longer valid. So, for your maths to be correct, then the equation that you are using to prove them to be correct, must its self be incorrect. As you said earlier, if you base a theory of something that is incorrect, is it a logical fallacy. I said that it wasn't a logical fallacy, but it did mean that your conclusion are incorrect (just not a logical fallacy). So the very mathematics that you used to prove your theory correct, because they are shown to be incorrect, indicate that the theory is also incorrect (as the proof of the theory is derived from those equations). As Mathematics is a Universal pattern of reality, this means that if something is shown to be mathematically incorrect, then it can not be reality. If it is not reality, then it doesn't exist in this universe. God, as described by all religions does not exist. Why, because there is no reliable evidence for his/her/its/their existence. Also, the God described in the Judaic/Muslemic/Christianic religions is not one I would consider worthy of reverence (so that if He did exist, I wouldn't worship him). If you are proposing a completely new concept of God, then I would hold it to these criteria: 1) Is there any reliable evidence for its existence. 2) Is this Deity worthy of my reverence (however, if it doesn't require it, then this question is not as important). If there is reliable evidence for a Deity, then I will not deny Its existence. But whether or not It is worthy of reverence will change the way I feel about It if It does exist. Again, lack of evidence. If reliable evidence is presented, then I will accept them as being real. But until there is evidence, I can not accept them as existing. Now, people tend to get emotionally charged about these concepts (logical fallacy: Appeal to Emotion). So I like yo use an analogy: Money in the Bank. If I wanted to buy something from you for a lot of money and said that I had money in the bank to pay for it, but I can not prove to you (no evidence - eg: my bank statements show $0 in it) that I do have that money. Would you be willing to give me the expensive item and not ask for it back if there really was no money in my bank account? I don't think many people, even the very religious one, would agree to that.

What if the answer to the question was: You will put up the hand opposite to what we say. Due to the uncertainty principle, this is impossible. But even if it was possible, they would then need to collect the data about themselves, then collect the data about their data storage devices, and so forth. The data about their data storage is the most problematic because as they gather the data about it, this extends the amount of data that they need to collect about the data storage. And, because there is more data to be discovered about the data storage device than what can be stored in it (or the data stored in the device would have to be greater than the the amount of data that could be contained within the device ), there would always be more data to be discovered. In other words, the more data the nanobots discover, the more data the will be for them to discover. Their task would be a Sisyphusian task.

Friction is not a form of energy. It is a process that allows kinetic energy to be turned into some other kind of energy (heat or sound). But yes. The kinetic energy will not be all turned into heat energy, most of it would be turned into sound energy (waterfalls are quite loud), and it will also be used to do work (wear away the rocks, push water further down stream, displace the water near the waterfall as spray, and so forth).

In environments that have low survival stresses, it gives the genomes of a species the ability explore configurations that otherwise would be less than needed to survive. This allows genetic drift and actually increases the survivability of the species. Because a species that has undergone this kind of genetic drift has a much broader genetic base, when times get hard again, there will more likely be individuals that will be able to survive better than others and so the species will continue. It does mean that there will be individuals that would not survive at all unless they were in such a low survival stress environment. However, it is because of these individuals that the genetic base is expanded. In humans, it is our social systems and our tool use (technologies) that have provided this low survival stress environment. Through our technologies we have enabled individuals who would have otherwise have not survived to survive and this increases the genetic base of humanity. If (or when) the survival pressure increases again, many of these will tragically not survive. But it is because of the variation that produced these in the first place that will mean that Humanity has a greater chance of survival. This is the biggest argument against any form of eugenics. Under Eugenics, the society is imposing a very harsh survival stress. This eliminates the benefits of genetic drift and so reduces the societies overall ability to adapt to change. Take for example the 2nd world war and the concept of the Arian race. This was a form of eugenics (if you didn't conform to this genetic standard then survival was made much harder, or you would be outright killed). Now imagine if this had continued, but then the Ozone layer was severly depleted (like we almost did). This genotype has not got much protection against UV radiation from the sun. This genotype would then be badly adapted to the new environment (and therefore not genetically superior like the propaganda was trying to say). Variation is genetically superior to a restricted genetic base. It is elimination of variation that will spell the doom for humanity, not variation. Variation will be its saviour.

I am not saying those analogies are science, but instead I was trying to explain to you what science is. Your biggest mistake here is that you do not know what science is and so you have made up your own version of it and are then using that version of it to argue against science. There it is. No analogies or anything Oh, and those web sites I linked to were only Wikipeida and were only so that you could learn about logical fallacies (that is incorrect logic and arguments). Your biggest problem is that you don't understand what science is, but your most common mistake is that you keep using logical fallacies when trying to deliver a logical argument. In fact, you misunderstanding of science has lead you into a logical fallacy as you created a Strawman Argument against science by creating your own version of science that is very different to what science actually is. Mathematics goes back thousands of years (in fact the origin is not actually known). So the first, second and third formulas created by man are lost to history. So what exactly do you mean by the first, second and third formulas created by man? Yes, science uses mathematics as mathematics is a branch of logic and science is based on a logical approach to describe reality. Science can exist without mathematics, it just can't exist without logic (but as maths is part of logic...). Now, with Maths, it can be used to describe reality, but it can also be used to describe things that can not exist in reality. As an example, take a Kline bottle, this is a Mathematical object where the inside of the bottle is also the same as the outside of the bottle. Now, something like this is mathematically possible, but it could never actually exist in reality. So Reality can be described by a subset of Mathematics, but there exist things is mathematics that are outside of Reality. As science is about developing a description of reality, this means that we have to be aware that just because something can be constructed mathematically, it does not then follow that it must also be a description of reality. No matter how prefect your maths is, if what you are describing is not possible in reality, then you can not be describing reality. I did, but it seems that because what I posted disagrees with what you want to believe, then you find something insignificant (like the fact that I posted links to references and actual evidence to support my claims) and so you seem to feel justified in ignoring it. your theory is wrong because you: 1) Do not show that there are observations (evidence) that contradicts currently accepted theories. 2) Use logical fallacies to support your position. 3) Make mistakes in the basic mathematics used in the presentation of your theory. 4) Have demonstrated an ignorance about what the scientific method actually entails (and yet claim that you are doing science). How are those reasons?

The do know, Einstein told them and wrote it down. The Theory that Einstein came up with was not just E=MC^2, that is the result of his theory (a prediction). The actual theory (the mathematics of it) are several pages long and without a good understanding of quite complex mathematical principles, you would not understand it yourself (which is why you have never been taught the exact theory, only the result of it). I don't fully understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theories, but I do know enough that they are very precise and can be tested (and are tested on a by second basis - in GPS units all over the world). I understand the maths enough to know that E=MC^2 is a result (and it is actually a simplified result) of his theories. So to you, it might seem like he just plucked the E=MC^2 out of thin air, but that is because you haven't read and understood the masses of documentation that he went through to arrive at that result. Yes, this is the first part: Observation. But this is where you start to make things up about what science actually is. See: Strawman. Just because you have a misunderstanding about what science is, and you can find fault with that misunderstanding, does not mean that science is wrong. What it means is that your misunderstanding of science is wrong. If I was to misunderstand your theory, then show that my misunderstood idea was wrong, then have I proved your theory wrong? No. Neither is it with science. You have misunderstood what science is and you have a problem with that misunderstanding. This does not show that science is wrong, only that your misunderstanding is wrong. And on that we can both agree. Please read this wikipedia article: ad hominem. You just keep doing this. It is also a strawman as the argument against science is also not actually an attack on science but on your misunderstanding of it. No. Trial and error is much slower than the scientific method. Would it have been faster to create a new theory by trial and error, or by observing patterns and attempting to analyse it through logic and mathematics? Analisys is a directed activity, where as trial and error is an undirected activity. The directed activity is far superior than an undirected one. For example. You could try an navigate between two towns by trail an error (pick a random town, travel to is and see if it the town you are trying to get to), or you could use a more directed approach (analyse the situation by finding where the town is in relation to the one you are in, asking for direction from people who might have travelled through it or been near it, draw a map based on this information and then travel to the town), and if the map is wrong, you make modifications to it to fix those errors. Actually you can see an analogy between the second approach to the travel and science. In science they first observe a phenomena (get the name of the town they are trying to get to), then they look for work that others have done that might be similar or related (asking for directions), and then developing a theory that related to the phenomena in question (draw a map), then use that map to find your way to the town (test the theory) and then if the theory is wrong, make modification to the map (adjust the theory or develop a new one based on further observations and testing of the theory). So is science done by trial and error? No. It is a directed methodology, more akin to Map Making than randomly wandering around and hoping to find the town you are seeking. Actually, the methodology that is science has some roots in the map making business. Sailors venturing to unknown waters would use what they know of the oceans, rumours, and such to make a guess about what lies there. They would then prepare for what they though was there and then sail out to it. They would then adjust their knowledge based on what they find. This is how the Americas were discovered by Europeans. Columbus had evidence that said that the world was round. He also had stories of other sailors that had ventured in that direction and returned. He came up with the theory that if one sailed west from Europe, then one would sail around the world and reach India. He tested this theory by sailing west from Europe (and not by trail and error, he did not just aimlessly wander around the Atlantic ocean to see what was there). However, Observation disagreed with his theory somewhat. By sailing West, he did not reach India, but another continent that was unknown at the time (to Europeans). He then adjusted his theory to include this continent, but he still kept the heart of it which was that the world was round and that if you travelled West far enough you would reach the East (which was later tested and found to be true). This is an example of a prototype scientific method and why it is more like Map Making. Map Makers don't just randomly wander the landscape and draw what the find, they make predictions about what is in the unknown areas of a map based on observations and stories about that area. They then don't just leave it at that (they used to and this is why old maps are labelled "Here be Dragons" in the locations that were unexplored as that was what they were told was there, and they didn't check), then check those areas by sending an expedition to those locations to find out what is actually there. It is exactly the same with science. It is not simple trial and error. However, that said, sometimes trial and error is use when all else fails. Like when a completely new phenomena is discovered and there is nothing that we know that is related. But it is a very, minor exception. So if they work for years developing a theory that explains the observations, makes prediction about that phenomena that matches with future experimentation and observation, is heavily scrutinised by people all over the world that can get success by showing that someone else's theory is wrong and produces consistent results (ie: That the theory properly describes what is going on in the Universe), then it must therefore be a "Trick". If it is a trick, then it is a trick that the Universe itself is in on. It is a universal conspiracy in the literal sense, that the Universe and every single particle in it is conspiring against you. Umm... Society does not do this (in the scientific sense). Science is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship ruled over by Reality. Reality states what is and is not so, science just describes it. If the patent clerk follows the scientific method, then other scientists will not think him mad, they will think he is a scientist. But if the scientist does not follow the scientific method, then he will not be though of as a scientist. the definition of a scientist is: One who uses the scientific method of inquiry. It does not matter if someone is as dumb as a post, or has an IQ of 2,000,000. If they don't follow the scientific method, they are not doing science. If they can't back up their claims through evidence, their claims can't be reproduced or tested, then they are not doing science. If I made a claim that I had found the last unicorn in the Universe, but than it died and so I cremated it and scattered its ashes. Then how can you believe me. You might just have faith that I am telling the truth, but for someone who uses science, they would demand evidence. They don't just accept something because someone, no matter how smart (or how dumb), or how famous they are for other scientific work is, they accept things based on whether or not you can actually show that it is real (well it is more that they can't prove that your claim is not real). If I went into a game of soccer claiming that I knew the rules of soccer, but then started playing by the rules of rugby, should I be punished (sent off or told to play by the rules of the game that is being played?). Such it is with many of these psudo-scientists. they claim to be doing science (playing soccer), but they don't abide by the rules of science and instead by their own misunderstood concepts of science or just down right ignorance of them (they are playing rugby). If I make a claim that I am selling land, but don't actually have land to sell, should I not be punished? If someone makes a claim about their actions, should then not be held accountable for those actions? If someone claims that they are doing science, then should they not be held accountable to the rules governing scientists? People are not excluded from since because they think differently, but because they don't follow the rules. these rules (the scientific method) was put in place to eliminate theories that don't describe reality. So if someone is labelled a psudo-scientist, or is excluded from the scientific community, it is not because they think differently, it is because they are making a incorrect (at best, fraudulent at worst) claim about their actions. they did and because they failed to describe reality, they are therefore labelled as psudo-science. ok so if a theory can't 1) Say anything about reality 2) Make claims that are shown not to occur in reality 3) Is not based on reality Then it must be psudo-science. I'd agree with that. Science is about describing reality. If someone makes a claim that they are doing science, but what they are doing has nothing whatsoever to do with reality, then I would say they are not doing science (and if they knowing do it this way, they are committing fraud). No. There would be other effects that would be the result of your theory that could be tested. The big Bang theory can't be directly tested as we can't go back in time to the big bang (and if we did then we would be obliterated). However, if the big bang is true, then certain effects will have occurred and these can be tested. In fact, they have been tested, are being tested and will continue to be tested. Based on all the tests so far, it seems that the big bang really did happen as we have no evidence that contradicts it (there is evidence that although doesn't contradict it could describe other methods of the universe's beginning, but any of these have evidence that contradict them). The reason that the Big Bang is the most likely one is that as new evidence is discovered, there is little (the least) or no changes needed to it to account for these new observations, where as the other theories need more and more changes to account for the new observations. So, if your theory can make predictions as to what we should observe, today, if it is true, then we can test those to test your theory. Are you willing to attempt this? If you are, why not try it. Make predictions using your theory that we should be able to observe today that would contradict the big bang theory and would not be contradicted by your theory. Give it a shot. At worse you will learn something, at best you might just win a Nobel Prize. Part of the practical side of the scientific method is that you document your working (remember math classes where you are told to show your working). Well Einstein did this. He documented his application of the scientific method in arriving at his theory that produced that E=MC^2. There is actual physical pieces of paper that show he actually used the actual scientific method. This attempt at an ad hominem is completely and utterly wrong. Reality says otherwise. As I said earlier, Science does not care how smart you are. If you don't follow the scientific method: You are not doing science. If you don't follow the rules of soccer, the you are not playing soccer. What you ahve done is assume that because something ahs the same units, that it is describing the same thing. C^2 is not an acceleration, but a simplification. The proper formula is: E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2 Notice that you can derive E=MC^2 from this under certain situations. This is why E=MC^2 is a simplification. You have assumed that because C^2 looks like the description of acceleration, the they are the same thing, but when you look at what it really is in the full formula you can see that C^2 is not an acceleration, therefore your substitution of C in the formula is incorrect, which makes you theory incorrect. Your math is wrong. No. According to your formulas: "W = M x V²", For W=MAD you would need the orriginal formual to be: W = M x V^2 x D, which it isn't.

These are called ad hominem arguments and are a logical fallacy. Yes. Masses of it. To name a few: Red Shifts, Cosmic Microwave Radiation, Star formation and life cycles, Galaxy Formation and Life Cycles, Relativity (both general and special versions), Quantum Mechanics... And so on, pretty much all of science. And that if these were wrong, then other devices that use the principles would not work either, like GPS, Fibre Optics, Nuclear Power Stations, and so forth. Yes, I would, especially instead of one that had never been tested at all, or that someone said I just needed faith for it to work. Trial and error is about trying something and then if it doesn't work making adjustments and trying again, then repeating until it is shown that it will never work, or that you get it working. So a medicine developed by trial and error would be one that actually works. Also, science is not trial and error. It is about first observing a regularity (eg: That chewing some kinds of willow bark provide a small analgesic effect). Then developing a theory that supports that observation (eg: That there is a chemical in the bark that has this effect). And then testing that theory (eg: Trying each chemical in the bark for the analgesic effects). This is how Aspirin was developed. Also, science means that if you discover that your theory was wrong (eg: That the willow bark has magical properties), you either develop a new one, or modify the old one so that it better fits the observations, and then retest it. Science is about being precise in your predictions (results of the theory), and as Mathematics is pretty good at being precise, then it is used. Because it is such a useful tool it is therefore used fairly often and relied upon (the other thing is because it is reliable and science requires repeatability it also fits well). Most carpenters have a hammer, so would you consider them suspicious because most of them have hammers? No. A Hammer is a useful tool for a carpenter, so they tend to have them. Mathematics is a useful tool for science, so why do you consider it a problem for them to use a useful tool? To outsiders (ie everyone but you), this looks like an unfounded prejudice. You can't find logical faults with their evidence or their conclusions from that evidence, so you attempt to make a strawman and ad hominem argument against them.

Ok at first I thought this was a mistype, but it appears that it is what you mean. If the galaxies were orbiting as you say, then there would be an equal number of galaxies red shifted and an equal number blue shifted. This is because the galaxies on the inner orbit would be going faster. This means that any galaxy that was then ahead of us would be getting further away, and hence red shifted. But, for those galaxies that were behind us, these would be getting closer to us and so blue shifted. The same would be with the outer galaxies. As these are travelling slower than us, then the ones ahead of us would be getting closer and so be blue shifted. The ones behind us would be getting further away and so be red shifted. Assuming an even spread of galaxies around the orbits, then there wold be an equal number of red shifted and blue shifted galaxies. BUT, you said their were more red shifted galaxies than blue shifted galaxies (and as observation confirms). This means that the galaxies can't be in an orbit as if they were in an orbit, then we should see roughly an equal number of blue and red shifted galaxies (but we don't see it) So observation and claims made by you disprove your theory. You disproved it yourself when you stated that there are more red shifted galaxies. This equal number of red/blue shift is testable. We are in orbit around the centre of our own galaxy. So we should be able to test this with the stars of our own galaxy. And guess what, they are equally red and blue shifted. Sorry, the fact that if all the galaxies were in orbit around something, then this should produce an equal number of red and blue shifted galaxies completely disproves your theory.

Using this analogy, it is you who are claiming that the green unicorns exist, that is why the burden of proof is on you. You are claiming that you have another theory that explains all the observational evidence we have (and you do have to explain all of it). That is the Green Unicorn you are trying to say exists. Under your theory there is no need for Dark Energy or Matter or the Big bang, but they are aspects of your theory. The current theory states that observations indicate that there is matter that doesn't seem to interact with electromagnetic radiation, yet exerts a gravitational influence. This is then called "Dark Matter" (dark because it doesn't interact with light). Also, there seems to be some force that appears to be causing an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. As this force is unknown in exactly what it is, it is called Dark energy (in this case it is dark because we are in the dark about what it actually is). Then there is the matter of the big bang. From observations, we can see that most of the galaxies in the universe seem to be moving away form us (red shifted), and the further away the galaxy is the faster it is receding. On the assumption that there is no special place in the universe (which if there was such a place it would show up in observations, which it hasn't), this means that all galaxies are moving away from each other and the further they are the faster they are receding. Following this backwards in time, it indicates that all the matter in the universe was, at one point, in the same place and then expanded. This is what we call the big bang. So... If we want to get rid of Dark Matter, we have to explain what it is that is gravitationally interacting with matter, but does not interact with electromagnetic radiation (light). If we what to get rid of Dark Energy, we have to explain why the universe appears to be undergoing an acceleration of expansion. And if we want to get rid of the Big Bang, we have to explain why the universe appears to be expanding and therefore, in the past, would have been in a single location (which it then expanded from). All you have done is to state that these don't exist, but have not provided an alternative to why we have these observations.

Umm... The reason it is called "Dark Matter" is that it doesn't interact with light. So the question "what happens when it interacts with light" has the answer: Nothing because it doesn't interact with light.

Supposition is not science, yet you keep insisting that you are doing science. However, you are supposing that there is a causal relationship, but still don't actually state what you think this relationship is. If all you do is show that the number 12 occurs, then that is not new. If you are supposing that there might be some causal relationship between these instances, then tell us what you think it might be. No, you would then be doing science. Science experiments are about testing the predictions made by theories. If you are not proposing a prediction based on the supposed causal relationship between these separate instances, then there is nothing to test. As science is about testing these predictions, we can categorically state that you are not doing science. Whatever it is you are doing it is not science. So you are asking us to take it on faith. Now we are into the realm of Numerology. If you know what this supposed link is between these instances of the number 12, then tell us. If you are saying that there will be some link discovered in the future, but you have some secret knowledge in advance of that, then why don't you just tell us what that link is? I am not saying here that you need to make a prediction. Only tell us the reason that you think there is a link between these instances of the number 12. If your reason stands up to the tests of logic and evidence, then you might be on the track towards actual science. If we can use that reason to make predictions about other phenomena (instances of the number 12), then we will be doing science. If this then gives us new insights into physics, or makes the physics that we know significantly easier, then you might be up for a Nobel. But until then there is a very, very long road to travel. Science is about making predictions based on logic and observation (evidence) and testing them. You are nowhere near to doing science here.

I think this is easier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossamer_Albatross No matter how high you increase gravity (or how much weight you strap to yourself), muscles can only increase so much. There is a limit to what they can do. Otherwise you would see people far stronger in the Olympics (and other sporting events). Even with drugs there is still a limit.

This is a logical fallacy. Just because something is a "new fact" and science is about discovering new facts does not make it science. The reason that this is needed is the logical fallacy Post hoc ergo propter hoc. You have shown that you can encounter the number 12 in various different situations. You then have to show that this is not Cherry Picking (intentional or accidental). Your premise is not that the number 12 exists (or that certain phenomena produce the number 12), but that this number 12 has a causal relationship between these apparently disparate phenomena. So far all you have done is keep saying that certain phenomena produce the number 12. Nobody is denying that thee produce the number 12. What they are saying is that you have to show why you think there is a causal relationship between these phenomena and what that relationship is. It doesn't matter how original your approach or how keen your observation if you jump to incorrect conclusions. You have gone form keen observation of the number 12 to the conclusion that there is a causal relationship between these occurrences. Unless you can show a logical and causal relationship between them, then you have not actually shown anything at all. All you have done is apply a logical fallacy and state that you are right (which is also another logical fallacy, that of Bare Assertion. 3 Logical fallacies, but science works on logic, so this can't be science. It is not Numerology either (as that is a mysticism thing and you are not proposing a mystical significance to this). What it is, is an illogical jump to a conclusion not supported by evidence or actual process.

Yeah, that was an experiment to measure the speed the Earth rotates around its own axis, not the sun. But congrats on a good experiment though. It takes 1 year for the Earth to orbit the sun (as that is what a year is defined as ). SO we know that the Earth completes a 360 degree arc every 365.25 days. What we now need is the distance we are from the sun, then we can do some calculations that tells us the distance we travelled in that time. If we know the distance and we know the time we have the speed (and can easily convert it to any unit system you like) of the Earth's orbit. To work out the distance to the sun is fairly easy. What you need to do is measure the angle of the sun from two different locations (the further apart the better) simultaneously. You can then use trigonometry to work out the distance to the sun. It would be best to do this at different times of the year so as to get an average distance to the sun (as the Earth's orbit is not a perfect circle). Once you have the distance to the sun, you have the diameter of the orbit and can therefore work out the circumference (2 * Pi * Radius = Diameter). So you have the distance the Earth travels (calculated form the radius of the orbit) and we know the time (365.25 days). We can then work out the speed of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

What are some common things between all living organisms? Growth Reproduction Metabolism Well lets look at these. Metabolism: With metabolism, energy and material enter the organism and then it uses these in biological processes that allow it to grown and reproduce. Without Metabolism, an object might grow (as in crystals, or through accretion as in dust bunnies), but growth its self does not designate something as being alive. An object can also reproduce without being alive. If you break a dust bunny into two parts, then this is a form of replication, and each can then grow. But dust bunnies are not alive, they are just bits of fluff and dirt sticking together into a ball (you can find them under your bed, or many other places in your house). So, growth and reproduction are not necessary direct indicators of life. However, if they are combined with a metabolism, then this is a good indicator of life (but not a perfect one as someone might be able to point out an exception). But, without a metabolism tied to growth and reproduction, the object can't be considered alive. So the question comes down to: Does the Earth have a metabolism? Is there any material that the Earth gets from outside? Yes, asteroids and meteors fall to Earth all the time. Is there energy that reaches the Earth from outside? Yes, sunlight form the sun reaches the Earth. Do these things interact in a way to cause the Earth to grow by changing the make up of the matter (re ordering it), or allow it to reproduce? No. There is no chemical reaction driven by the energy of the sun that causes the make-up of the meteors change from being "Not of Earth" to being "Of Earth". This means there is no metabolism occuring, and without that metabolism, the Earth can not be alive. Secondly: You are making a logical fallacy: Equivocation. This is the fallacy that goes: because two things are similar in some properties, then it must logically follow that they are the same. This is not true. I am sure that it would be easy to come up with a list that shows that I (or anybody else) have many things in common with a pig. But does this mean that I am an actual Sus scrofa domestica. I don't think so. For one thing a Pig might have some trouble typing on a computer keyboard... Just because things have some similarity (the bark of a log, or the layers in a tree are similar to the fact that the Earth has a crust and is layered), does not mean that they must therefore share other properties (being alive). I always remember the Movie "Shrek", where Shrek is trying to tell Donkey that Ogres are complex in their emotions. He uses an Onion as an example of how Ogres have layers to their emotions. But Donkey makes this exact same mistake with the Equivocation logical fallacy. Donkey thinks that because onions have layers and Ogres have layers then other things that have layers is what Shrek is talking about, and starts talking about cakes. This is particularly relevant as you keep bringing up the claims about layers and crusts as being indicative of life because trees have it. Well so do Cakes. Does this mean that the Earth is a cake? It might be a Rock Cake? But are Cakes alive? Do they grow, do they have seeds. Can you plant a choc chip from a cake and grow a Cake Bush? No Get it? Just because two things have some properties in common (or in the case of Earth and trees, a superficial appearance of commonality), does not mean that they are the same or share other properties in common (like being living - or choc chips). None of us are denying that both the Earth and Trees share some superficial similarities. But, because Equivocation is a logical fallacy, we can then not just assume that because they have these similarities that they also share other similarities. We have to prove that the processes that led to those particular features have the same causes in both cases. As the layers in a tree are caused by the growth and division of cells in the wood of the tree, and the layers in the Earth are caused by the settling out of different materials due to differences in their densities, we know that although they might have a similar appearance, they are actually not the same things as they have different causes.

It is like an automatic switch. When the coil rotates, the arrangement of the commutator allows the current to be switch so that it will always be flowing in the correct direction to allow the coil to keep turning. It really is just a cleverly arranged, automatic switch.

It is High demand, low supply that creates higher prices. What we have now is high demand forcing the prices above the break even line. What we have to do is to lower it by creating supply. Exactly. This was my point. We need to government to assist in the development of this supply industry. I am not saying that the government has to foot the bill for it, quite the opposite actually. The government offers incentives to start-ups by providing loans with low interest. The governments can then recoup these costs as the start-ups pay back their loans. It is not like they have never done this kind of thing before. Also, they could create the industry themselves as a government run institution, but then as solar production takes off (and the demand for this silicone increases) they can sell it off, it if so desired. Yes, the government might take a short term loss (around 5 to 10 years), but it would be less than the costs of a nuclear plant and the money will be returned quicker than a Nuclear plant as well (ie you expect return on the investment before the nuclear plant would even be operational ). Remember, the government is not creating these solar power stations, they are helping to create an industry that supplies the creation of solar cells. This in turn makes the development of the end product cheaper (the solar power plants) and this can then be invested in by industry (which has more money available to invest - hence they can afford the plants). This will also have knock on effect in other industries that rely on high quality silicone too (like computer manufacturing) as it will also give them access to more cheap high quality silicone and help reduce the costs of those industries too. This is not even mentioning new industries that will spring up to take advantage of this new cheap resource.

Yes, but other forms of solar technology are more viable for large scale production of electricity. Also, there is Micro generation. Rather than a single huge power plant, there are many small power plants. This has been made possible through remote operation and distributed information systems. SO the arguments of the past, that controlling and monitoring it was infeasible, has been completely removed. Also with the lower cost of solar cells this should be even more feasible (IIRC around 20 years ago, they stated that if the price of oil rose above around $70 a barrel then this kind of technology would be economically feasible). Micro generation is an adaptation of these "other uses", only they need the distributed control and management systems that are now possible. Although, for micro generation to work we need to increase the supply of solar cells produced or supply will not keep up with demand (and then the price will rise). This is what I was saying. Governments need to help start up production plants so that we can start getting the required supply levels up and making this policy. You have acknowledged that these other used are feasible, so why not on the large scale (distributed micro generation)?

No. They are formed from gas and dust accreting from Nebula. No. Turbulence within the accretion disk around the protostar formed into dust grains, then into planetesimals, then into planets. There was no "splitting off". In fact over time the solar system has got simpler, so even the analogy with the "simplest hydrogen solar system" is false. The reason it has gotten simpler is that over time the gravity of the larger bodies (planets) has pulled in most of the smaller stuff and included into themselves. This is still going on, so the Solar system will get simpler yet. It has less individual things floating around. The planets have got bigger only because most of the smaller stuff has fallen onto them. It is like saying that a Snowball is alive because you can keep sticking more snow onto it and so it gets bigger. Gravity has no repulsive force that we know of (and if it does exist it would be so small that it would be insignificant, or we would have known about it by now ). As gravity is the dominant force acting on the planets, this means that there is no significant repulsive forces between the planets. So they can't be "repelling" each other. So not one single sentence in that entire paragraph was actually correct. "He" does not know what "He" is talking about.

Planets grow by the gravitational accretion of matter. Plants grow through chemical reactions. Ergo, plants and planets (although only a 1 letter different) are nothing alike.

I like the idea behind fusion too. However, whether or not it is actually practical is another problem. We might be able to use it to generate an excess amount of energy (ie more energy that it take to initiate the fusion), but if that is not a large amount, then we will not be able to make it economically viable. But if we could... There is a small amount of mass production of solar panels, but this small amount is not enough. However, even this small amount has already dramatically reduced the costs of solar panels. If we ramp up the mass production of solar panels to the amounts needed, the cost of solar panels would become a fraction of what it is now. There is only a few places in the world that actually manufacture them, to get the amounts needed we would need to have a lot more places manufacturing them. And what is the cost of doing this? Loss of the other energy markets (oil, coal, etc) and so a loss of jobs there. However there would be an increase in the jobs involved in the Solar generation market and an increase in that economic sector. Plus an increase in R&D for new solar technologies (more jobs and economy growth).

There is a massive difference between this kind of solar power system and generation on large scales. How expensive is it to run a diesel generator for household power generation as compared to getting it off the grid?It is like comparing apples and oranges (and so constitutes a logical fallacy). You are also forgetting that currently, because, there is no demand for Solar cells on a large scale, there are not a lot of mass production facility for them. With mass production comes a dramatic reduction in costs. What I was saying before is not that governments should subsidise the end user buying solar cells, but instead support businesses producing them. Buy helping these businesses start up, they will be encouraging mass production and therefore an eventual reduction in price to the end user. Yes, but the price is dropping, and technologies in lab that need development into commercial products will drop the price even further. Mass production will drop it even further still. I am calling an other logical fallacy here. Just because in the past solar power were expensive, and they are still moderately expensive. It is estimated that a return of cost can be achieved within 5 or so years (which is on par with a general rule of thumb for most other business types) and last for around 20 years (which is 15 years of profit). So, it actually looks like Solar is economically feasible today. But, you would be looking at mass production factories coming on line within around 3 to 5 years from now (in which case the costs of solar will have dropped even more - from technology rather than mass production). We are probably looking at 10 years before we hit one of the tipping points (if not sooner - 10 years is conservative), and with a 5 year lead time on production, that only give us 5 years to roll out the new power systems. If you remember what I said: A lot of the bad methods are all about keeping the status quo. All these you listed are all about keeping the status quo. We need to change in how we approach this problem. These ideas show that we have not learnt from our past mistakes. Bio fuels intersect with other resource production (food), so for us to keep using these would mean we have to give up part of another market (not necessarily on a 1:1 scale though). Technology creates new markets and jobs. This means that Solar technology, even though (today) is expensive, the money that is put into its development and production cycles back through the economic systems. And, if you know some of the basics about economic systems, then the more that money move through an economy, the stronger it is. This is because money when spent, doesn't just disappear. That money goes to someone who spends it (pays the workers), then the recipient of that payment can then spend it. Actually I have always though of economies like an electric circuit, the electrons (goods) go one way around the circuit and the money (current) goes the other way. Actually I suggested Solar as one potential option. I even suggested that a multi pronged approach, using different generation types (wind, solar and geothermal for example) would be best. However, I do think that Solar will end up being the dominant source in certain uses, as it is portable (you can't carry a wind farm or a geothermal plant around on your car ), and can be made much less obtrusive (as people have stated, they don't like the aesthetics of wind farms). The reality is that we need action and the lead time (20 years for a nuclear plant) might be too long. To get production capacity up for things like Solar or wind will take a few years too. There are current power station projects that have been started (and the sunk cost fallacy will most likely keep them under development).

There is an urgency (in that the longer we go on the harder we will have to work to make any corrections - if we still can). What problems do you see in implementing National Solar Power Grids? There are costs, but with rising fossil fuel costs, and even if the solar power technology does not improve, we will still come out better. The cost of oil might drop (one reason would be that demand suddenly drops), but the only way we can know if it will or not, is to wait it out (which we don't have the luxury to do). There might be better systems out there (wind, wave, geothermal, etc), but if we include the prospect of taking these up if successful, then we can mitigate this risk. Someone might develop and even better solar power system. Well this too can be accounted for, just like for alternate technologies. We can do this by specifying the needs of a future project (power station) using today's costs and knowing that future technologies will be cheaper and more efficient (or if not, then we would have at least the same cost as today). Any savings can then be put to further use, maybe by future proofing the new system or put back into research for better power technologies. What we need is the governments to fund the production chains of these technologies, from source to implementation. This could be through grants, loans, or even creating government own businesses (wholly or in part) with the plan to privatise them at the end of a certain period (maybe at the break even point). I also understand that it is not as simple as what I laid out here, but I wasn't actually attempting to layout a specific plan, just demonstrate that a plan of action could be undertaken that minimises risk (or even eliminates it). It is almost like we are caught in a cycle of perfectionism. We don't seem to be able to act until we know that the choice we make is the perfect one. We don't need a perfect system, we just need one that solve the problems, and these already exist (solar and wind).

Modern science, because of the scientific method, is incredibly successful. It has not failed. The entire modern world of technology is here only because of the success of science. If science had failed we would still be stuck ploughing our fields with a stick, instead of massive, complex and extremely powerful machines. If science was not successful, then we actually could n ot be communicating in the method we are now. There would be no internet, there would be no computers, there would be no electricity. In fact, if science was not successful, you would not be alive right now to even try and claim that science is not successful. Child mortality rates used to really high. It is only through medical science that child mortality rates has dropped as far as it has. With the high mortality rates, it would have been likely that you, or one of your direct ancestors would have died as a child and then you would never have been born. So much for the failures of science .