beecee

Mainstream thinking is not entrenched. Just because some personal idea is not readily accepted by others, does in no way mean mainstream is entrenched. It changes all the time, as hypotheticals are evidenced and researched and implemented within mainstream thinking, if found more valid then the incumbent model. But what example are you referring to, to cut to the chase? Whatever personal, my thinking type of reply you get from me will certainly not be maths based, but I will certainly supply a reputable link to support or otherwise, whatever it is you see the need to support. Let's try again..... https://www.askamathematician.com/2012/02/q-whats-the-difference-between-anti-matter-and-negative-matter/ extract: With a liberal peppering of exotic matter (often far more than the universe’s total stockpile of regular matter) you can really open up the flood gates of the weird. However the big difference, arguably the biggest difference, between anti-matter and negative matter is that negative matter doesn’t exist. While negative matter may not contravene GR, neither does wormholes, and if any sufficiently advanced civilisation were to use wormholes as a means of travel, they would essentially need some of this negative or exotic matter to facilitate traversing the wormhole. Now I'm not siding one way or the other, [negative mass would be fantastic if it existed for potential distant galactic travel] but as I keep saying, its still highly speculative.

Perhaps the lack of comment from PC/Mainstream folk here is because at this time it is still just a POV, and the recent article does not add or subtract from any supposed validity or otherwise and is just another pov on a still speculative idea. And I think its worth mentioning that someone being mainstream, does not necessarily imply political correct....A POV is mainstream because the vast majority of scientists see that as the most likely, logical, and closer to what was/is observed.

For a man who is I believe [perhaps wrongly?] that is pretty well known in Australia, I have yet to see any mention of this case in either the TV or print media...zilch, nada!

I once [well probably a few times] confronted you with a quote re, "all philosophers are jackasses" I withdraw that in favour of "all religious zealots are jackasses"

Bondi may have been notable in the scientific community, as to were Hoyle and Gold. I don't have too much to say as much is beyond me, but obviously neg mass is not contradictory with GR. Whether iyo is right or wrong, or Bondi's opinion, will in time be revealed I would imagine as continued research takes place. That's about the best we can say at this time, so the exact nature of DM and DE remain as is...uncertain. I would also add that any Cyclic universe model, which I believe is the same as the old Oscillating model of the fifties, by its very nature, entails a BB, actually a number of BB's. My question in that regard is why are we not seeing cosmological blue shifts over large scales? found this...... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263659720_Solving_the_negative_mass_paradox Abstract: In 1957 H Bondi showed that the introduction of negative masses in the universe goes with a preposterous phenomenon: The so called run away effect: when a positive mass encounters a negative mass, it escapes and the second one runs after it. We show that a bimetric description of the universe goes with a different interaction laws system. Masses with the same signs attract each other through Newton's law. Masses with opposite signs repel each other through Anti-Newton's law. This produces a lot of phenomena which makes it unecessary to recourse to Dark matter. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: also..... https://www.askamathematician.com/2012/02/q-whats-the-difference-between-anti-matter-and-negative-matter/ extract: With a liberal peppering of exotic matter (often far more than the universe’s total stockpile of regular matter) you can really open up the flood gates of the weird. However the big difference, arguably the biggest difference, between anti-matter and negative matter is that negative matter doesn’t exist. There are some subtle physical laws that imply that the creation of negative energy, in the form of exotic matter or not, has limitations called “quantum interest“. Anytime a bit of negative energy is generated (and the methods involved create, like, none), a larger, overwhelming pulse of positive energy must be created almost immediately. In fact, we’ve never directly observed negative energy and it’s very, very likely that we’ll never be able to do more than infer that negative energy exists. But anti-matter definitely exists, and can be created and stored (a few particles at a time) here on Earth. Many particle accelerators today generate and use anti-protons all the time. When you smash stuff together, or otherwise get a mess of energy in one place, new particles are generated; half matter and half anti-matter. It’s basically annihilation in reverse. Once you create a spray of new particles, you sort the matter and anti-matter apart, keep the anti-particles ionized, and store them (briefly) in a “magnetic bottle“. If they ever becomes electrically neutral the magnetic bottle stops working, and they fall and annihilate with the ordinary matter at the bottom of the container. Anti-particles are totally the hot potatoes of particle physics.

What a beautiful thread! I feel that way about all of science particularly the cosmological sciences. Good start and keep learning! And take heed in the excellent reply post from Phi for all. Can I recommend something? See if you can get hold of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" TV series from the seventies. He in my opinion was a brilliant communicator and educator and the series was incredibly well done and knowledgeable. Yes, I know there is an updated version by Neil DeGrasse Tyson with co-oporation with Sagan's wife Ann Duryan and probably good to get that also and notice how things have changed in certain areas.

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-helium-exoplanet-inflated-balloon.html Helium exoplanet inflated like a balloon, research shows: December 6, 2018, University of Exeter: Astronomers have discovered a distant planet with an abundance of helium in its atmosphere, which has swollen to resemble an inflated balloon. An international team of researchers, including Jessica Spake and Dr. David Sing from the University of Exeter, have detected the inert gas escaping from the atmosphere of the exoplanet HAT-P-11b—found 124 light years from Earth and in the Cygnus constellation. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-helium-exoplanet-inflated-balloon.html#jCp the paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/12/05/science.aat5879 Spectrally resolved helium absorption from the extended atmosphere of a warm Neptune-mass exoplanet: Abstract Stellar heating causes atmospheres of close-in exoplanets to expand and escape. These extended atmospheres are difficult to observe because their main spectral signature—neutral hydrogen at ultraviolet wavelengths—is strongly absorbed by interstellar medium. We report the detection of the near-infrared triplet of neutral helium in the transiting warm Neptune-mass exoplanet HAT-P-11b using ground-based, high-resolution observations. The helium feature is repeatable over two independent transits, with an average absorption depth of 1.08 ± 0.05%. Interpreting absorption spectra with 3D simulations of the planet’s upper atmosphere suggests it extends beyond 5 planetary radii, with a large scale height and a helium mass loss rate ≲ 3×105 g‧s−1. A net blue-shift of the absorption might be explained by high-altitude winds flowing at 3 km‧s−1 from day to night-side. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: supplementary article: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-exoplanet-atmosphere-tail.html the paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/12/05/science.aat5348

Sure we are! So I suggest that we all keep up to date with the research from reputable science agencies and such. It will be extremely unlikely that any ground breaking discovery will be discovered on forums such as this. There is no animosity on my part. I sleep very peacefully at night.

Hmmm, interesting, and here's poor old me thinking you were just one of the blokes! I've let you proceed without comment on this thread, actually because I started feeling sorry for you and hoped that you would calm down.But now another blatant lie from you has changed that. I have never messaged you...you have never messaged me...you are a blatant liar.

As per your OP....technically, this isn't a theory....it is only an hypothesis, one that other scientists can think on, research on, and either validate or otherwise. There are literally hundreds of hypothetical scientific papers out every day....that's how science advances...some are lost forever in dusty archives and lost in cyber space[as probably this will be] others are found to be evidenced and validated, like GR and the BB.....that's science, that's the scientific method.

I agree. He may have turned down the Presidency of Israel, but I believe he was a very diplomatic person as well as extremely humble. As I said earleir in the piece, if he was alive today and a young scientist, with the Internet, etc etc, he may be more forthright with his answer. The other problem as I showed above, is individuals taking what he said out of context. http://barefootsworld.org/einsteinnote.html This is an unrecorded letter, found in a private collection, from Albert Einstein, in which the theoretical physicist wrote of his religious beliefs. This is the back side and closing of the letter. Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, upon receipt of Gutkind's book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt." In this extraordinary letter Einstein writes, "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish" “In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000) “My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality.” The same as god throwing dice and throwing them where they cant be found analogy.

Quotes attributed to great people are invariably taken out of context..... https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-openpage/einstein-misquoted/article5230256.ece "Prof. Vasant Natarajan tells us that Einstein called belief in God “childish superstition”. The actual quote is: “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a CHILDLIKE [NOT CHILDISH] one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervour is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”In fact, Einstein’s humility comes through in that his own attitude is childlike, which is indeed the attitude human beings must have in relation to God. (I will justify the use of the term ‘must’ because the scriptures of all religions enjoin on us an attitude of humility, and not pride, before the majesty of God.) Let me quote Einstein further: “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” So that was the position of Einstein. It’s understandable that those inclined not to believe in God or religion misplace their anger against violence done in the name of religion, against religion itself — But, it is, in fact a misjudgment." :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: http://barefootsworld.org/einsteinnote.html This is an unrecorded letter, found in a private collection, from Albert Einstein, in which the theoretical physicist wrote of his religious beliefs. This is the back side and closing of the letter. Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, upon receipt of Gutkind's book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt." In this extraordinary letter Einstein writes, "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish" Einstein was Jewish but went to a Catholic primary school, receiving private tuition in Judaism at home. He declined the offer from the newly formed state of Israel to be its second president. In this letter, which was written in German the year before his death, Einstein wrote, "For me the Jewish religion like all others is the incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity, have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them" Although Einstein emphatically rejected conventional religion, he was affronted when his views were appropriated by atheists, whose lack of humility he found offensive, and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility." Einstein was an intensely spiritual man and wrote extensively on the subject, perceiving a universe suffused with spirituality, while rejecting organized religion. In his later years he referred to a "cosmic religious feeling" that permeated and sustained his scientific work. In 1954, a year before his death, he spoke of wishing to "experience the universe as a single cosmic whole". He was also fond of using religious flourishes, in 1926 declaring that "He [God] does not throw dice" when referring to randomness thrown up by quantum theory. Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him. It is clear, for example, that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions ... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion. Einstein’s numerous and easily found pronouncements on the issues of God, faith and religion have revealed him to be the sort of peculiar hybrid not uncommon in scientific fields. No atheist, Einstein nevertheless characterized the notion of a personal and interactive God as a prideful one. The discoveries wrought through his curious mind reminded him, always, of all he did not know, and he wrote of the “superior spirit” and the “harmony” that connected and ran through everything with a genuine sense of wonder that could be described as a rather humble agnosticism. “In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000) “My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality.” (The Human Side, Princeton University Press) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So let's not take the great man and what he said out of context. I have often while looking at the stars, been lost in awe and wonderment, and awe and wonderment, of which much can be reasonably explained though science. If Einstein would have been alive today, perhaps with all the advancement that has been made, he may have thought differently Reminds me of a quote I heard once...not sure who said it, but gee, a couple of notable people I have crossed swords with of late, should take heed of it..... "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be" In other words, leave your baggage and agenda at the door before indulging in solving the cosmological problems around us.

Spacetime is bent, warped, twisted with the presence of mass/energy, in line with Einstein's equations and GR. No, you just need to accept the fact there are still questions as yet unanswered...Science does not know everything....hokkus pokus, spiritual myth and supernatural are unscientific myth. We observe light to lensed, follow geodesics, and gravitationaly and cosmologicaly red and blue shifted. Because as yet we are not smart enough, but we do have quantum theory for the very small, and GR for large aspects. Not my theory mate, but both are a reasonably accurate picture that describes the universe we inhabit, each in there own domain. Space is changing all the time and is expanding. As yet we do not know whether space is infinite or finite..although it is very large and apparently "near infinite" in extent and content...

Light actually follows geodesics in spacetime and that was explained admirably when Eddington in 1919 tested Einstein's theory during an eclipse of the Sun. Light is redshifted because the universe is expanding over large scales. Over smaller scales such as our local group of galaxies, the gravity is strong enough to overcome that expansion and the light is blueshifted. Gravitational redshift is also evidenced. see.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Experimental_verification Experimental verification[edit] Initial observations of gravitational redshift of white dwarf stars[edit] A number of experimenters initially claimed to have identified the effect using astronomical measurements, and the effect was considered to have been finally identified in the spectral lines of the star Sirius B by W.S. Adams in 1925.[1] However, measurements by Adams have been criticized as being too low[1][2] and these observations are now considered to be measurements of spectra that are unusable because of scattered light from the primary, Sirius A.[2]The first accurate measurement of the gravitational redshift of a white dwarf was done by Popper in 1954, measuring a 21 km/sec gravitational redshift of 40 Eridani B.[2] The redshift of Sirius B was finally measured by Greenstein et al. in 1971, obtaining the value for the gravitational redshift of 89±19 km/sec, with more accurate measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope, showing 80.4±4.8 km/sec. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Now again, do you have any evidence to support what you are speculating? Also from the same link....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Experimental_verification Terrestrial tests[edit] The effect is now considered to have been definitively verified by the experiments of Pound, Rebka and Snider between 1959 and 1965. The Pound–Rebka experiment of 1959 measured the gravitational redshift in spectral lines using a terrestrial 57Fe gamma source over a vertical height of 22.5 metres.[3] using measurements of the change in wavelength of gamma-ray photons generated with the Mössbauer effect, which generates radiation with a very narrow line width. The accuracy of the gamma-ray measurements was typically 1%. An improved experiment was done by Pound and Snider in 1965, with an accuracy better than the 1% level.[4] A very accurate gravitational redshift experiment was performed in 1976,[5] where a hydrogen maser clock on a rocket was launched to a height of 10,000 km, and its rate compared with an identical clock on the ground. It tested the gravitational redshift to 0.007%. Later tests can be done with the Global Positioning System (GPS), which must account for the gravitational redshift in its timing system, and physicists have analyzed timing data from the GPS to confirm other tests. When the first satellite was launched, it showed the predicted shift of 38 microseconds per day. This rate of the discrepancy is sufficient to substantially impair the function of GPS within hours if not accounted for. An excellent account of the role played by general relativity in the design of GPS can be found in Ashby 2003[6]. Later astronomical measurements[edit] James W. Brault, a graduate student of Robert Dicke at Princeton University, measured the gravitational redshift of the sun using optical methods in 1962. In 2011 the group of Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen collected data from 8000 galaxy clusters and found that the light coming from the cluster centers tended to be red-shifted compared to the cluster edges, confirming the energy loss due to gravity.[7] Other precision tests of general relativity,[8] not discussed here, are the Gravity Probe A satellite, launched in 1976, which showed gravity and velocity affect the ability to synchronize the rates of clocks orbiting a central mass; the Hafele–Keating experiment, which used atomic clocks in circumnavigating aircraft to test general relativity and special relativity together;[9][10] and the forthcoming Satellite Test of the Equivalence Principle. In 2018, the VLT had successfully observed the gravitational redshift and the first successful test has been performed by the Galactic Centre team at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics(MPE).[11]

The reason why the BB is the accepted theory of the evolution of the universe is because of the preponderance of evidence that supports it. You as yet have given nothing to support whatever weird proposal you are proposing. Sunspots of course are simply regions of the Sun that are slightly cooler then the rest of the Sun, and associated with magnetic field lines. Absolutely nothing to do with any Supernova of any other star.

Do you have any evidence to support whatever it is you are proposing?

Funny how you are incessantly harping on your belief that at times science is wrong, when no one I can recall has ever said science is infallible, unlike other questionable disciplines. A scientific theory is formulated based on the preponderance of evidence that supports it...The scientific discipline and theories, unlike other questionable disciplines is never complete...That is the nature of science, and the quality that is admirable and lacking in other disciplines. But obviously as scientific theories continue to stand the tests thrown their way, they become more certain, yet never really proved beyond any shadow of doubt, as there is always room for improvement in the model. Science does not deal in proof, only in what I detailed above. Here is an excellent answer to the question of evidence and proof...... https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-evidence-and-proof “Evidence” refers to a set of facts or information known to be true about something. For example, in a criminal lawsuit, a gun found at the crime scene would be considered evidence, along the fact that the gun belongs to the defendant, for the guilt of the defendant. The fact that the sea level has been rising at an average rate of 3.4mm per year since 1993 is evidence for climate change. While these may all be true facts, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the evidence; even though the defendant’s gun was found on the crime scene, it could have been stolen by someone else who actually committed the crime. Just because the sea level has been rising for over a decade does not guarantee the existence of man-made climate change. A lot of the time, evidence simply suggests (though very compellingly) the conclusions being offered. On the other hand, a “proof,” in a mathematical or logical sense, is a set of truths that necessitate the conclusion. Given that the premises and facts are true, the conclusion must follow, no if’s, and’s, or but’s. It may not seem like it sometimes, but every mathematical proof is built by stacking logical blocks of truth on top of each other until the desired result is reached. There is no guessing or implying or leaps of faith in a proof, unlike when relying on scientific or legal evidence. I suppose proofs could be considered evidence as it is defined above, but not in the same sense that legal or scientific evidence is. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: This is why the fact that science does not deal in any supposed "proof" or "truth" rather it accepts that knowledge of the universe we inhabit is contained to what we are able to observe, but as those observations and the knowledge gained improve, so to does the science, the models and thankfully, the elimination of non scientific myth.

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-greenland-ice-sheet-centuries.html Greenland ice sheet melt 'off the charts' compared with past four centuries December 5, 2018, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Surface melting across Greenland's mile-thick ice sheet began increasing in the mid-19th century and then ramped up dramatically during the 20th and early 21st centuries, showing no signs of abating, according to new research published Dec. 5, 2018, in the journal Nature. The study provides new evidence of the impacts of climate change on Arctic melting and global sea level rise. "Melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet has gone into overdrive. As a result, Greenland melt is adding to sea level more than any time during the last three and a half centuries, if not thousands of years," said Luke Trusel, a glaciologist at Rowan University's School of Earth & Environment and former post-doctoral scholar at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and lead author of the study. "And increasing melt began around the same time as we started altering the atmosphere in the mid-1800s." Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-greenland-ice-sheet-centuries.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0752-4 Nonlinear rise in Greenland runoff in response to post-industrial Arctic warming: Abstract: The Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) is a growing contributor to global sea-level rise1, with recent ice mass loss dominated by surface meltwater runoff2,3. Satellite observations reveal positive trends in GrIS surface melt extent4, but melt variability, intensity and runoff remain uncertain before the satellite era. Here we present the first continuous, multi-century and observationally constrained record of GrIS surface melt intensity and runoff, revealing that the magnitude of recent GrIS melting is exceptional over at least the last 350 years. We develop this record through stratigraphic analysis of central west Greenland ice cores, and demonstrate that measurements of refrozen melt layers in percolation zone ice cores can be used to quantifiably, and reproducibly, reconstruct past melt rates. We show significant (P < 0.01) and spatially extensive correlations between these ice-core-derived melt records and modelled melt rates5,6 and satellite-derived melt duration4 across Greenland more broadly, enabling the reconstruction of past ice-sheet-scale surface melt intensity and runoff. We find that the initiation of increases in GrIS melting closely follow the onset of industrial-era Arctic warming in the mid-1800s, but that the magnitude of GrIS melting has only recently emerged beyond the range of natural variability. Owing to a nonlinear response of surface melting to increasing summer air temperatures, continued atmospheric warming will lead to rapid increases in GrIS runoff and sea-level contributions.

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-mantle-neon-illuminates-earth-formation.html The Earth formed relatively quickly from the cloud of dust and gas around the Sun, trapping water and gases in the planet's mantle, according to research published Dec. 5 in the journal Nature. Apart from settling Earth's origins, the work could help in identifying extrasolar systems that could support habitable planets. Drawing on data from the depths of the Earth to deep space, University of California Davis Professor Sujoy Mukhopadhyay and postdoctoral researcher Curtis Williams used neon isotopes to show how the planet formed. "We're trying to understand where and how the neon in Earth's mantle was acquired, which tells us how fast the planet formed and in what conditions," Williams said. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-mantle-neon-illuminates-earth-formation.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0771-1 Capture of nebular gases during Earth’s accretion is preserved in deep-mantle neon: Abstract: Evidence for the capture of nebular gases by planetary interiors would place important constraints on models of planet formation. These constraints include accretion timescales, thermal evolution, volatile compositions and planetary redox states1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Retention of nebular gases by planetary interiors also constrains the dynamics of outgassing and volatile loss associated with the assembly and ensuing evolution of terrestrial planets. But evidence for such gases in Earth’s interior remains controversial8,9,10,11,12,13,14. The ratio of the two primordial neon isotopes, 20Ne/22Ne, is significantly different for the three potential sources of Earth’s volatiles: nebular gas15, solar-wind-irradiated material16 and CI chondrites17. Therefore, the 20Ne/22Ne ratio is a powerful tool for assessing the source of volatiles in Earth’s interior. Here we present neon isotope measurements from deep mantle plumes that reveal 20Ne/22Ne ratios of up to 13.03 ± 0.04 (2 standard deviations). These ratios are demonstrably higher than those for solar-wind-irradiated material and CI chondrites, requiring the presence of nebular neon in the deep mantle. Furthermore, we determine a 20Ne/22Ne ratio for the primordial plume mantle of 13.23 ± 0.22 (2 standard deviations), which is indistinguishable from the nebular ratio, providing robust evidence for a reservoir of nebular gas preserved in the deep mantle today. The acquisition of nebular gases requires planetary embryos to grow to sufficiently large mass before the dissipation of the protoplanetary disk. Our observations also indicate distinct 20Ne/22Ne ratios between deep mantle plumes and mid-ocean-ridge basalts, which is best explained by addition of a chondritic component to the shallower mantle during the main phase of Earth’s accretion and by subsequent recycling of seawater-derived neon in plate tectonic processes.

That is patently obvious and true. I find that rather bizarre that you are claiming that discussing the scriptures does not entail discussing whether they are true or not. sheesh. Another bizarre premise. Science is a discipline in continued progress, as technology [brought about by science] enables further observations and more precise experiments. A quality we all should strive to attain. The fact that the Catholic church find no conflict in accepting the science and validity of the BB and the theory of the evolution of life, throws the bible, the scriptures in serious doubt, contradictory, and false. I have absolutely no argument with that dimreepr, nor with anyone that follows the bible and scriptures. It's the hypocrisy shown by many that try and ram the scriptures down others throat, that annoys many. Just as obviously also personally, I am as content as I could be in my life, and what I have done for others, and am still doing, without any reference to the scriptures. I live my life according to what I believe logic, sensibility and consideration dictate.

OMFG!! I must really have trod on his toes pretty hard! First on ignore [or so he says, But I reckon its a porky pie] then numerous complaints, and now a sock puppet!!! My apologies iNow. Can someone though pass onto my friend, that a scientific theory is the highest accolade any scientific model can have, other then a law. His continued arse up approach to science here as far as proof and evidence goes, and other even more dramatic errors, misinterpretations in other threads is really simple basic stuff. PS: Not sure what thread it was but I gave "Phi for all" a thumbs up for a great no holds barred description of coffeesippin....shame I could not have made it two!

The climate Nazis banning all thought not in agreement? And yet here you are, preaching your fanaticism and nonsense on a science forum! Not to mention the deniers that are airing their views every day on TV Radio etc.... So you want evidence that human induced climate change is happening? But so far you have rejected all the evidence. What evidence would suit you? And what world agenda are you on about? And more to the point, what is your agenda? I mean such aggressive fanaticism, screaming and yelling, tells me you are not totally impartial to the evidence that tells us human induced climate change is happening. Sometimes a picture, well two pictures, tells it far better then a story. And here's a graph that amply illustrates the problem at hand..... https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives. The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1 Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate. The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response. Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3 The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling: Global temperature rise The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. 5

Hmmm, observing this so far, my reaction was this sounds like the poster that called himself Olin....perhaps some checking would not go astray? just a thought.

Wheeew! Thanks for that Strange...I was just about going to go to confession and repent all my sins! This means I can now carry on being normal!

The map/s may have been made by NASA, but it is your lack of knowledge, and erroneous interpretation that is at best in total error. And your hypothesis fails at [3] and [4] We observe the web like nature of galaxies etc in the universe...We observe the expansion over large scales...we observe gravity being an attractive force or resulting from spacetime geometry, and arrive at a logical well supported theory admirably supported by the BB. The voids are a result of continued expansion and gravity acting on the matter in drawing it together forming web like structures with increasing areas of less dense voids. False pretentious humour, does not detract from the fact that your ideas are impossible and the OP is speculative in nature. Voids are less dense regions and are a result of expansion and gravity. Nice link, but it does nothing to invalidate the BB, nor does it support any of your impossible, erroneous ideas. from that same link.... "He thinks that the void is a confirmation that dark energy is at work in the universe. Normally, when the CMB photons pass through a gravitational well, created say, by a supercluster of galaxies, they first gain energy as they fall into the well, then lose energy as they climb out. Problem poser If the expansion of the universe is accelerating due to dark energy, then by the time the photons climb out, the supercluster has expanded, and its gravity is a little less strong. So the photons exit relatively easily and with more energy than they had when they entered the gravitational well. But photons going through a void actually lose energy, ending up colder than if they had been flying through a series of superclusters. Rudnick thinks that the discovery of the void ties in neatly with the WMAP cold spot and the existence of dark energy. “What the community says remains to be seen,” he told New Scientist. “People will take shots at it now.” Because the CMB is leftover radiation from the big bang, some cosmologists have said that the cold spot is a problem for the theories of the early universe. But Rudnick says that the void could have been created billions of years after the big bang. “We have taken the problem away from the very early universe and put the problem in the time of structure formation,” he says." Let's comment on the above again. Besides the fact that there is nothing wrong with the map, rather just your ignorance on the subject and misinterpretation/s, [1] The voids are simply less dense regions due to a combination of space expansion causing the less dense regions and gravity acting to pull galaxies together resulting in the web like structure surrounding these voids, [2] They are not "pushing" the galaxies apart per se, rather the galaxies and groups of galaxies are simply being attracted to heavier density regions of space, leaving the voids to become larger and less dense, in conjunction with the universal expansion. And that ironically is exactly what your own link says! Nice argument.....[highlight by me] Worth adding that the web like structure of galaxies that we see, are due to the DM acting on those galaxies and pulling them into the observed structure.