John Cuthber

No, all that shows is that, if there was a container that enclosed the universe it might stop it expanding. The other side of the argument is that, since there is nothing outside the universe then there is nothing to stop it expanding. How would "nothing" get in the way and stop the universe expanding?

OK, let's start with the fact that you don't know what "prove" means. They might be able to mislead a jury, but you can't prove something that's not true. You also seem to have missed the significance of the jury being, as you put it "dumb". The people who work on, and experimentally justified, the big bang are not the ones who are dumb- they are generally quite clever. If you don't agree with them, and they are clever, who is the "dumb" one here? (You may find this helps) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect "Is the Big Bang theory based on a mathematically gifted catholic priests desire to prove there is a beginning of time and everything." In a way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox Even without any real science we already knew there was a "start", based simply on the fact that it gets dark at night. The Big Bang is a considerable refinement- it sets a date, but the idea that there was a "creation date" was never seriously debated. "Is general relativity also holding back an understanding of space requiring possible imagined things such as dark matter to explain anomalies in the theory." No, the ideas are essentially independent.

Honey, garlic and lemon are toxic....

I'm not sure what "best single note melody music " is meant to mean. But the melody to the piece of music called "Jingle bells" repeats a single note 7 times. 4th stave down http://www.christmasmusicsongs.com/jingle-bells-sheet-music.html

My first response would be that you forgot the apostrophe in the title. Did the Devil make you do that? If we take the view that you are talking about the modern Christian view of the Devil then my response would be that the Devil's influence must be the will of God- because He knew what would happen if He introduced the Devil. It's a bit like wondering why God put the snake in the garden of Eden. Was He too dumb to realise what would happen, or did he want all the evil in the world? His decision; His fault. Realistically, things like that make it clear that the Scriptures were written by people, not any sort of God.

Better late than never. And then you can apologise to all the people you insulted because you didn't know WTF you were talking about. Incidentally, have you ever heard of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum#Conservation_of_angular_momentum I was going to say "third" but things seem to be looking up. Paul seems to have recognised that the entire weight of science outweighs the fact that his surname is Griffiths.

Sorry to disappoint, but I post under a pseudonym.Also, a man with the surname Cuthbert is more likely to be descended from a follower than from the saint. He was a monk and never married. However, St Cuthbert would have had access to a reasonable estimate of the distance to the sun. He would also have observed with his own eyes that shadows look pretty much the same size as the object that casts them. So, had he thought about it, he would have realised that the rays of light from the Sun are nearly parallel. And, had he considered how those rays of sunlight fell on the round Earth, he could have explained why it was cold at the poles and warm at the equator. So, he'd have had a better grasp of science than you have all these years later.

That's about as relevant and impressive as the fact that my mum taught one of the Spice Girls. It would have been better if you spent the time learning some science. Maybe by now you could have caught up with the world of astronomy from Archimedes time. Then you would, at least, understand how we have known (at least roughly) the distance to the Sun for thousands of years.

LOL Well, it's not exactly wrong... "at night on earth it's not that much cooler. How can you honestly believe it?" Well, the earth is big, so it warms and cools slowly. It's also heated from within by heat from radioactive decay of things like uranium and thorium. And it's "lagged" by the atmosphere. So, it takes a log while to warm up + cool down. However you have to accept that it's generally colder at night so it's clear that the sun supplies us with heat. "You have 1 evidence and I have many. Ill stick with mine, others will come around and your be the one alone." No, you have a single misunderstood observation. Science has zillions of bits of evidence. Don't expect to overturn a whole lot of science without even bothering to understand it.

It is difficult to know where to start when addressing something like that. School kids understand it: why don't you? Light (and heat) reaching us from the sun are pretty nearly parallel simply because the sun is a very long way off. The sun's heat is more spread out near the poles than near the equator. Also, because the Earth's axis is tilted with respect to the orbit the surface gets less hours of sunshine in Winter than in Summer. None of this is complicated. Also the different size fonts in your post just make it hard to read.

I don't understand the basic premise of this thread. There is plenty of evidence. Here's some of the most recently published stuff. http://time.com/magazine/

You have it the wrong way round, the current begins slowly and builds up to a steady state.

And yet energy is set free which could be used for things. It's not the point here anyway. The intent is to make neutrons. It's a bit like some of the early nuclear reactors which produced heat (as they do) which was then dissipated and not used for anything. The point was to make plutonium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_Reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-10_Graphite_Reactor All something of a distraction from the impracticality of the OP's idea.

No. It's a momentum calculation.

Last I heard was that Trump had realised his mistake and was thinking of "flip flopping" on it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-paris-agreement-macron-france-visit-climate-change-something-could-happen-a7840021.html

If you can't unplug it from the wall and have it run itself, it's not reached break-even. Every fusion produces a few MeV of energy. It's a net gain- albeit a tiny one. I can buy a KWHr hour of electricity and warm my house with 1.0000000000000001 KWhr of energy. That's a net gain. A tiny, pointless one; but a net gain.

Well, they blamed the whole lot on Americans and they are, of course "a bit foreign" and they also said "His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies,". Always good to point out how much better Trump is compared to the last guy (he was a bit dark you know).

It's pointless. It says what some goups of people "should" do, byut since most people are not in those groups it's useless, even if it was right (and it isn't). What does an average looking bloke* with an average job* do? * whatever that might mean.

Imagine I have a fusor in my cellar and I want to heat the house. I can fill it with air or hydrogen and get zero fusion. The heat generated as "waste" from the pumps, power supply and so on will still heat the house. If I fill it with deuterium I will still get that heat (which I pay for as my electricity bill) and I will get the additional heat from fusion. So fusion's a net benefit, even if it's only one reaction a week. The problem is that it's a very expensive investment to get very little heat, but that's not the same thing. It's economics, not physics. The same logic applies if I want to heat water to generate steam and thus make electricity. Any fusion is a net energy gain.

Or, as is loosely equivalent, don't read the Daily Mail.

It depends on the coin. All you need to do is found your own currency with coins that look like sticks, rather than like disks.

"Isn't it interesting that the climate change sharia has taken over the term "denier," " Possibly less interesting than your decision to (mis)use the word "Sharia" when you say this. "Simply adding water vapor to the Keeling Curve puts carbon dioxide as a flat line at the bottom." No. Whatever graph scale you put it on, the numbers are still real. The CO2 concentration goes up from about 315 to about 385. A rise of 70ppm against a start of 315 (actually, the pre industrial value is even lower and the current one is higher but never mind) is still a 22% rise. You can't sensibly say that 22% isn't a change. But why just add the water vapour? Why not add the oxygen and nitrogen too Were you concerned that such obvious manipulation couldn't be overlooked? People would notice that you are adding apples to oranges; it's not legitimate arithmetic. "Finally, former Secretary of State, John Kerry, states that if Americans stopped using all fossil fuels completely, it would not change anything whatsoever. Look it up on YouTube.com" Show us the clip so we can see the context. For example, if it says "Unless the rest of the world joins in, 'if Americans stopped using all fossil fuels completely, it would not change anything whatsoever' so we need the Paris deal" or something like that, it rather changes the emphasis. No. What they said was that imperfect science is the best we (ever) have. If we wait until we are certain, then it will certainly be too late. There isn't any "bad science " in the first couple of posts, so there's no way that a comment on the first 2 posts could be a commentary on "bad science" Incidentally, the OP might want to take a quick look at the reputation points of the posters here to get some sense of the quality of the previous contributions from contributors on this site .

"Only light radiation (and plasma leaks) let the plasma loose energy, " You have forgotten bremsstrahlung which gives every "near miss" or collision a chance to waste energy. "The net result is that you get more reactions with the same energy input from a plasma. " Not all plasmas are tokomaks. "This is the very reason why attempts to obtain net energy from fusion reactions use a plasma rather than an accelerator." You are looking for cheap neutrons. That may or may not be the same as looking for energy production. "Fusors and polywells (electrostatic confinement) are much worse than tokamaks at obtaining many fusion reactions and at obtaining them with a small power input. " Nonsense. Here's a fusor that runs a kilowatt or so, and produces neturons. http://makezine.com/projects/make-36-boards/nuclear-fusor/ Please show me the kilowatt tokamak. "The fusion experts' consensus is that they can't produce net energy, " You need better experts. Any fusion reactor must release energy. Even if it only fuses 2 deuterons a week, that's a net release of energy. They may never be economical but, again, energy production isn't the goal here. You want neutrons. "99Mo doesn't have to be separated from 98Mo if I understand properly - but I could be horribly wrong." I think you are horribly wrong. If I am reading this http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/060/28060364.pdf correctly, the other isotopes have higher neutron cross sections so nearly all your precious neutrons would be eaten up by the "wrong" Mo isotopes and in the end, just produce heat.

It is important to realise that scientific consensus is not like a political one. The scientists do not get together and agree a policy. What happens is that the scientists (largely acting independently) look at the data and form their own opinion. The reason that something like 99% of them form the same opinion is simply because that's the opinion supported by the data. It's the opinion which fits the real world.

Is it going to be cheaper to get many tonnes of isotopically enriched 98Mo than to get a few tonnes of 235U and build a fission reactor? How are you going to shred the massive blocks of metal to dissolve them and extract the product?