Strange

1. There was no experiment, the news story is about theoretical work. 2. It doesn't say anything about the mass required. 3. Your claim about it requiring "solar energy to stabilise the reaction" is unsupported by any evidence. If you are unable to support your claim, I will request this thread is closed.

Note that I was quoting his son's comments about him making bigoted and discriminatory comments. Maybe you should take it up with him.

Indeed. Someone applied the techniques in “The Bible Code” to one of the Harry Potter books and got equally meaningful results!

You could get a marker pen and just relabel the dial on yours...

Agreed.

The "language regulating entity" is the population who use the language. Dictionaries record that usage. Verbing nouns is standard in English, and always has been, even if some people think it weirds the language. Maybe because time is the wrong setting. Or maybe because I have never got used to them! (I never owned one.)

Why not? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/microwave But I agree that microwave instructions are weird. I just stick it on for a couple of minutes and then keep re-trying until it is hot.

You can pick any numbers, find a pattern and claim it is significant. And, of course, numerologists always pick the numbers that "work" (are easy to invent a relationship for). For example: Why? What happened to 19 and 2? But you will never convince someone who believes in numerology that they are wrong. It is like an incurable illness.

The potential problem is that people come along and just post more discussion. Even if on topic, it might find it hard for people to find the actual answer. Imagine it is an interesting question and there are a couple of good answers on the first page. Over time, because it is interesting, other people chip in with other opinions, other related (or unrelated) questions, etc. etc. You know, the usual discussion. Then someone comes along and sees "SOLVED" and thinks, "great, I can find the answer to this question". They look at page 20, then 19, then 18, then ... and give up before getting to the answer. (They obviously start at the end, because they expect the answer to be one of the last posts. I don't see how it can be considered "excessive". If there is a question and it has a good answer (and the person posing the question explicitly says, "thanks that's exactly what I was looking for. You could close this now.") then what is the problem with closing it? You want to ask a similar question? You want to ask the same question again (maybe you weren't happy with the previous answers or you didn't see the thread). Go ahead.

That is the most common reason, but not the only one. We do occasionally get two threads on the same subject that then get merged. Or part of one thread might be split off and merged with another.

The articles you quote disagree with you. There is no evidence that it is impossible to stabilise fusion.

You haven't demonstrated anything. You have posted a link to a news story in French (which appears to be a translation of this: https://phys.org/news/2019-01-scientists-stabilizes-fusion-plasmas.html). The news story seems to be about better ways to improve the stability of fusion reactors, and the same thing I linked to earlier. Why would you get a prize for that?

Most of those replies look pretty nonsensical. That is the trouble with sources like that, it is very hard to distinguish good replies from bad.

Not at all. If they had a good point to make that added value to the previous information, why would it be dismissed? But, as Phi said, they can always start a new thread (with a link to the original) with the information.

If they have something useful to contribute, they could request that the thread is re-opened (temporarily) so they can add to it. The mods might decide that makes sense, or that the response deserves a thread of its own.

That sounds like the "firewall hypothesis". But that is a result of a contradiction that comes about when you try and combine GR and QM. Good point. An observer free falling into a black hole would not see any Hawking radiation so the concept of the BH's temperature becomes fairly meaningless.

! Moderator Note I did not claim any "falsities". I simply noted the rules: the correct place for your personal theory and the rules about advertising.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. If you want to discuss your idea, do it here. This is not a place to advertise your YooToob channel.

! Moderator Note This appears to be identical to your other thread. Locked.

I'm not sure I see the difference in meaning there. Maybe that is the problem with using words to describe things, instead of math!It Also, I prefer to think of "the Big Bang" as the ongoing expansion we see around us, rather than some (possibly non-existent) event. It is certainly attempt to say that there would be a minimum "quantity" of space-time (ie. that both space and time would be quantised). If "moment" was meant to mean some minimum but non-zero amount of time, then this would be true, in this sort of model. I think that is a coincidence. Delta was chosen, as far as I know, to represent a (small) difference between two values because it is the first letter of diaphora (difference). The letter originally seems to have comes from an Egyptian glyph representing a door (dalet). It is also a pretty odd coincidence that "door" begins with D even though the word is completely unrelated!

It's an interesting question. Is some form of genetic material (something encodes information about the physical structure) essential to life? Perhaps only if that lifeforms is going to evolve. We can imagine some sort of cellular organisms that reproduces by growing and splitting so it doesn't need anything to encode a genotype separate from the phenotype. If it does have some sort of genetic material, would it need to be DNA? It is quite possible that there are other molecular structures that could be used to encode information. If there was DNA, would it use the same encoding to create the same amino acids? It could use different bases and synthesise different products. If it were the same DNA and encoded the same proteins, then there could a be a good argument for a shared origin. But it could be an example of convergent [chemcial] evolution. But maybe DNA encoding those proteins is the only mechanism that works. Until we find some examples, we just won't know! That seems unlikely. There aren't really other elements that support such a wide range of structures. But it might be that very simple structures could be formed, based on sulphur or something, that were able to meet some definition of "living".

Not sure what you mean by coincidental, but a triangle is the simplest geometric shape that can be used (repeatedly) to represent any 2D surface. It is used in computer graphics for example. The same is true for the 3D equivalent (a tetrahedron) and also for 4 dimensions.

A lot of work is being done to develop this, but it seems to always be some way in the future. What news are you referring to? The only thing I could find is: https://futurism.com/fusion-reactors-efficient But this seems to be very preliminary work that could take many years to make any practical difference (sounds familiar).

However, the continents are still drifting. We can measure them moving apart where plate tectonics says they are, and measure them moving together where plates collide. We can also measure the rise of mountains (as the excellent video shows). It is possible that there are some unanswered questions regarding details of the mechanisms. Or maybe your questions are just a result of your ignorance of the subject. I don't know enough(*) to comment either way. However, as your entire "theory" is based on a physical impossibility, I am going to suggest that this thread is closed as pseudoscientific nonsense. If anyone disagrees and thinks there are interesting aspects of geology to be discussed, then please report this post (that way the reports will all be in the same place). (*) So there is no reason to consider my "ignorant" comment an insult; it is just a hypothesis to explain the evidence. And an infinitely more plausible hypothesis than an expanding Earth.

! Moderator Note Moved to speculations. ! Moderator Note This is a science forum. If this is the best you have, I can't see this staying open long.