Strange

While looking for info about the disappearance I found that there is a twitter feed for the forum. But it hasn't had any updates for a few years.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

I am fairly certain that you have had answers from at least one person with a PhD in microbiology (or close to it). But, of course, you have dismissed it because it wasn't what you wanted to hear.

Oh really? What about: You are unable to support this claim. Others, who I know have some level of expertise in the subject, have refuted it. You might be better trying some new age woo site, as you are clearly not interested in scientific answers. I'm sure you will find people there who share your wacky beliefs and will sell you some nonsense about drinking onion juice under the full moon, or something.

"Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work." https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

Both of the above! Firstly, we know the rate of expansion mainly from measuring the red-shift of distant galaxies and comparing that to their distance. It was noticed about 100 years ago, that there is a linear correlation between distance and red-shift. The Hubble-Lemaitre law: the red-shift of distant galaxies (equivalent to their recessional speed) is proportional to their distance. This increase in speed with distance is not "acceleration", it is just expansion. (There is a lot behind that, which I don't really want to go into. For example, how do we know the distance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder. And other ways of measuring the rate of expansion give slightly different answers, which may indicate new things to be discovered.) Important thing to understand is that expansion is a scaling effect (so when people say things like "expanding at the speed of light" it is completely meaningless). As a result, the speed at which any two points separate is proportional to how far apart they are. This is just simple arithmetic, nothing to do with cosmology. Consider a number of galaxies separated by the same distance (far enough apart that the expansion of space is significant and the same between all of them). At time 0, they are 1 unit apart: A.B.C.D.E.F After some time they are 2 units apart: A..B..C..D..E..F After the same time again, they are 3 units apart: A...B...C...D...E...F And so on: A....B....C....D....E....F Now, if we look at the distance between B and C, for example, it increases by 1 at every time step. But the distance between B and D increases by 2 at every step. So the distance between B and D is increasing twice as fast as the distance between B and C; i.e. the speed of separation is twice as great. Choose any pairs of galaxies and you will see that apparent the speed of separation is proportional to the distance between them. Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light. This is basically the cause of the Hubble-Lemaitre law. Then in 2011 a team of scientists got the Nobel Prize for having discovered that the relationship is not completely linear. It seems that at some point (about 5 billion years ago?) the rate of expansion had started increasing. The easiest way to model this in the equations describing the expansion is to add a new energy term which is constant for a given volume of space. As space expands, this energy term increases. This is called "dark energy". No one knows if this is the correct explanation (ie if there really is a thing called dark energy) or if this is just a useful way of modelling it.

I would be interested to know what you think is incorrect.

! Moderator Note Sorry. You have been told multiple times to post your explanations here. Thread closed. Also, stuff like this belongs in Speculations. Please re-read the rules you agreed to when you signed up.

This is nothing to do with the moderators. You own copyright in anything you post here, anyway. If you want to assert further licensing conditions that is up to you, and up to you to enforce. Although you can’t copyright an idea, so some one could just rewrite it in their own words, and express the math differently. (Not that anyone would want to.) There is no rule against posting a link to support your argument. If all you do is post a link, then that will be a violation of the rules.

HOW do you know this? Can you point to a reputable source that confirms this?

Dark matter was originally proposed to explain the unexpected orbital speeds of galaxies in clusters. Then it was found that the same thing applied to the orbits of stars within galaxies. Then it was found to be necessary to explain large structure formation. And signals in the CMB. And gravitational lensing. So it has been detected in multiple ways. It just hasn't yet shown up in any attempts to detect the specific particles involved (if there are any). Dark energy is relevant to the expansion of the universe; it is the simplest way of describing the accelerating expansion (not the expansion; that would happen anyway).

Citation needed. No one said there was. And yet you reject information from someone who does.

Plus a balanced diet and some moderate exercise to maintain your general health, perhaps

That does not seem to be the case: "As the color change is persistent and energy need only be applied to affect a change" The alternative would be to use LCD technology. Whether the LCD is transparent or opaque with no voltage applied depends on the relative alignments of the front and back polarisers. Also, even when a voltage is applied, minimal current is drawn (which is one of the major benefits of the technology). I assume this is also true of electrochromic materials.

I don't think this should be in Speculations. Unless you are going to insist that this poor deluded man is right? It is rather worrying that an engineer working for NASA should come up with this tosh. But no doubt someone will point out why it doesn't;t work. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that New Scientist published it uncritically. They could have written an educational article explaining why it doesn't work (they employ writers with a background in science, or they used to). But they decided to fall back to their default position of being the Daily Mail of science.

A theory is the closest thing you get to a proof in science. In which case, you can add in the kinetic energy, as well. (Without shouting.) No, it's a measured number.

The mass is identical, even if the chemistry is different. In the case of energy released by chemical reactions the equation e=mc2 relates to the difference in mass before and after the reaction, not the mass of material you start with. The only way of completely converting mass to energy is by combining matter and antimatter. In that case, it would not matter what the 1 gram was; the energy created would be the same in all cases.

Cheat! But, even simpler, you can just get Wolfram Alpha to calculate the answer for you.

And yet more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon

I think it is as much practical as well as ethical. If, after 60 years, there is no chance of proving that someone stole a chocolate bar when they were 12 does it make any sense to try and enforce that. And a law that cannot be enforced is a bad law. That means it will often come down to one persons word against another. This often leads to miscarriages of justice. The UK has no statute of limitations but there has been discussion on introducing one because of some high profile cases of child abuse leading to wrongful convictions (even accusations can destroy someone’s life). As you say, it should not apply to serious cases. And in most jurisdictions that is the case. (One can always argue about the definition of serious, of course.)

And then? I can’t see how that helps (maths is not really my thing)

Sorry, I didn't mean that *you* don't know (it is a relief to have someone come along with a thread like this and say they don't know, rather than insisting they have some amazing insight into the truth!) I meant we/one can't know. I think that is a very sound position. At least if someone comes up with new ideas, you can be open minded about them (instead of insisting they must be wrong because it is not what you believe).

So, your take is "don't know and can't know"?

No we aren't. And yes you did. You said, and I quote: "there is no spirituality". That means no people who have the characteristic of spirituality (it is, as we agreed, a human characteristic) because that characteristic does not exist. It is like saying there is no such thing as "tall"; that means you think there are no tall people. That is a dubious accusation from someone who thinks climate change is a conspiracy.

! Moderator Note The rules require you to post the information here, not just provide links. Moved to Speculations