Strange

! Moderator Note Do not hijack threads with you own topics. Especially when it is incoherent nonsense like this. I have deleted your attachment as it is potentially dangerous. And if you want to discuss something you need top post it here.

! Moderator Note You seem to have come to a science forum by mistake

You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

Well, only in countries like the UK and USA. I doubt you would find one in the rest of the world. Don't know about Canada or Australia, though. I have one that also has points and picas.

Normally centimetres and millimetres. What would you expect?

Why? What evidence is there for this (remember, this is a science site not a belief site). There are multiverse theories but they use only the known four dimensional space-time. (And there is no evidence for them anyway. Although some are potentially testable.) So, misconceptions... A white hole (if such things exist) would be an object in (otherwise empty) space that ejected matter and energy into the space around it. That is completely different from the Big Bang model. In that it has absolutely nothing in common. In the Big Bang model, space was completely and uniformly full of hot dense matter. It is not an explosion. Also, why would a white hole cause expansion to accelerate? "I imagine" is not good enough. If you want to promote this idea, you would need to show that a mathematical model based on it produces results consistent with what we observe. That is how science works. How can this anti-matter universe be "parallel" to ours? I have no idea what that means. How would it create the fundamental forces? And what aspect of this would create the wrong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces? Virtual particles are not a "made up coincidence". The term is used for how forces are transferred (and they are misnamed because they are not really particles at all). It is also used for the transient existence of particles due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (and the non-zero energy of a vacuum). Most of what you have discussed here is cosmology rather than quantum theory. ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

Anti-matter has the same energy (ie. mass) as normal matter. It is electric charge that is the most obvious difference (eg. negatively charged electron vs positively charge anti-electron, aka positron). Do you have any evidence for this? Yes, you are very wrong 🙂 I'm afraid there are so many misconceptions in your post, I wouldn't't really know where to start with an attempt at answering any of your points

! Moderator Note This is off-topics it appears to be about cosmology rather than quantum theory. Moved to Speculations. Note that you need to provide some support, either theoretical or evidence, for your claims.

I've never quite understood this. How does killing someone show to others that they will have everlasting life? It sounds more like proof you will die. Possibly horribly. It sounds like a really stupid thing to do. I'm really not sure that God thought this one through. One the other hand, it seems to have worked for a lot of people, so what do I know.

There has been research on electromagnetic precursors to earthquakes, but you need something a lot more sensitive (and quantifiable) than corona discharges around pylons (which are going to be affected more by weather). For example: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/12/can-electric-signals-earth-s-atmosphere-predict-earthquakes https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494396/

! Moderator Note One thread per topic please

If they came up with one piece of evidence that it was wrong, they would probably be in line for a Nobel Prize (roughly a million dollars?) That would have very obviously measurable effects. As these have never been observed, this is another falsification of the hypothesis. And yet the invariance of the speed of light has been extensively tested. And, if it were not invariant, it would be a violation of Lorentz invariance, which has also been extensively tested, to extremely high precision, in many and varied ways. An equally plausible "possible interpretation" of the results is that they were affected by invisible pink unicorns. You can make up any number of untestable reasons for the results of experiments. We tend to go with the ones that are based on known science, not unsupported guesses. There are no contradictions in GR. And, as others have noted, the experiment has been done and confirms GR. Also, it isn't "simple and logical" to come up with an explanation where you have to invent an extra mechanism that makes your different result look just like the one predicted by a successful theory.

I have a vague recollection of some studies on this (presumably based on versions of oral tales written down at different times) and it is remarkably accurate. In part, perhaps, because of the importance attached to the stories and to getting them right (and that the storytellers, for want of a better word) are highly respected in the society. And maybe the use of music (and actions/dance) helps reinforce the memories.

There is (the same one that basically applies in all science but also in the study of history, linguistics, literature, art, ...) For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

It would be interesting to know whether oral or written traditions are more error prone. It seems obvious that memorising epic tales, etc would be less reliable than relying on written forms. But I bet its not that simple.

! Moderator Note This has nothing to do with evolution. Have moved it to The Lounge. But @Farid not that, even here, we don't allow nonsense. You need to make it very clear what you are talking about.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum. Making a longer post is NOT a way of getting round the rule on advertising. Please do not use this forum to promote your YouTube channel

And we see that they were different in the past. (Ultimately, we see all the way back to when the universe was uniformly full of hot plasma) No it doesn’t. It is only talking about locations in space. (Please don’t turn this into yet another thread on your inability to understand the finite speed of light)

Yes. Saying this is a "lucky" time to be alive is a meaningless, subjective and anthropocentric comment. It is based on one irrelevant aspect of the universe. There is nothing objectively special or lucky about this time. It's the best of times, it's the worst of times. It is the age of wisdom, it is the age of foolishness. It is the epoch of belief, it is the epoch of incredulity. It is the season of Light, it is the season of Darkness. It is the spring of hope, it is the winter of despair. We have everything before us, we have nothing before us. There is absolutely no reason for that to be true. It isn't true about the Earth 1 million years ago and the Earth now. It isn't true about the year I was born and this year. It isn't even true about yesterday and today. Things change. Get over it.

GR allows them (big difference). I am not aware of any plausible mechanism for creating them nor any evidence that they exist. Or that they never existed in the first place. Probably because you are wrong

Agreed. Any people, at any time, might say that. It is a subjective judgement with no value in understanding the cosmos. It is, essentially, meaningless.

Corrupted might be a better word. But it can have quite negative connotations. Changed or evolved are more neutral. The texts will have changed over time purely because of things like transcription errors. Whether anyone has deliberately changed them (eg to fit a particular interpretation) I couldn’t say

They would be gold plated (to avoid oxidation). Gold does not haven’t good mechanical properties (eg it is not as “springy” as copper). It’s also too expensive for use in quantity. Many cheap connectors just use a corrosion resistant alloy.

There. That wasn't so painful was it. I am sceptical of people who make claims that they are unwilling to support. I am tired of people whose idea of a reference is "why don't you google it". The fact you claim they are "the UN's climate models" just shows the level of your intellectual dishonesty. Not worth wasting any more pixels on.

So what is more likely: that countries will deliberately plunge into a new "dark age" or that the target will be missed? (Assuming that the claimed target exists and that no suitable technologies exist. I am now sceptical about both of these "facts" simply because it is you that has stated them. And based on past evidence, you are not a credible source.)