Strange

I'm sure even a lot of people in Bristol didn't know much about him before this (despite a lot of places being named after him). So that is one positive to come out of this: increased awareness of Bristol and the UK's history.

It is ironic that you mention Occam's Razor. You have decided on a model with an extra spatial dimension so, even if it could reproduce the same results as the current model, it should be rejected by Occam's Razor because it has an unnecessary extra dimension.

I don't understand what you think is an opinion. The people who object to monuments to slavery and repression explicitly say that they want people to know more about this history. So that is a fact, not just my opinion. I suppose it is possible that those who want to keep them have different motives than the ones they obviously do. But I would need to see some pretty compelling evidence of that. Do you have any? If you think it is wrong to be passionate about social injustice (especially when decades of effort have failed to change things) then I'm not sure what to say. Well, as I was told "if you don't have anything nice to say then say nothing" I will say nothing.

It is not simply a matter of "finding stuff that agrees"; it is a very succinct and reasoned summary of the flaws in the "erasing history" argument. Those accused of "erasing history" are the ones who want the history exposed and discussed. Those making the accusations wish they would just keep quiet about it; "Why can't they just remember the nice things that Mr Hitler did." So it is easy to be dismissive of a cliche that has no basis in reality (if one wants to be objective). And I don't think there is any reason to be dispassionate about this. Quite the reverse. You might be surprised.

Just saw this, as an excellent response the idiotic "erasing history" trope: https://twitter.com/malorynye/status/1269659045096501248

You mean ... it's not inevitable?

rode_of_the_ruin has been banned as a sock-puppet of Trần Thành (and others).

So the protests are helping. There is an incredibly powerful video of a young black women telling protestors who were looting that they are damaging the property and livelihoods of the local people; the very people the protests were intended to protect. She said "every one of you had better be registered to vote." You could hear them all muttering "yes we are", "yes we will" (all sounding rather like embarrassed school kids). Hopefully, many more people will be motivated to register and vote.

As I said, neither simple nor intuitive. And no evidence that it matches observation.

An appropriate symbol of injustice in a public space like this would be a monument to the slaves who were traded and murdered by Colston and others. An appropriate place for an image of Colston is in a museum where it can be put in the correct historical context. One positive side-effect of actions like this is that many people have learned more about the slave trade in the last few hours than they did in the rest of their lives. Note, this was criminal damage and the police have a duty to investigate and try to find those responsible. And then it is up to the CPS to decide whether to persecute. That might decide that is not in the public interest, and I would not disagree with that. Also, heard an interview with the Mayor of Bristol who said that he wanted to get rid of the statue but felt that as the first black mayor it would cause too many political problems if he just walked into the job and ordered it removed. Another very ironic example of how the power and privilege structures work.

How do you generate electricity from evaporated seawater? Be specific.

Just saw an interview with the officer in charge of the police in Bristol explaining why they didn't stop a statue of a well-known slave trader being pulled down and thrown in the docks. Basically, they made the tactical decision that attempting to intervene at that stage would have caused more trouble. They are there to stop things getting out of control (*) and that's what they did. It remained an entirely peaceful protest. (*) And not to stop people doing the job that Bristol council should have done years ago (he didn't quite say that, but very strongly implied it)

What is "dark DNA" ? And how is it relevant? Note that "dark energy" is called "dark" because we don't know what it is. But in the case of dark matter, it is more literal.

It's a good question. I think (but I'm not sure) that the frequency or wavelength for a single photon is not something you can measure directly. You can measure the energy and hence deduce the equivalent frequency (or wavelength). If that is correct, then you could say that a single photon doesn't really have a frequency.

Belief, then. There is a strange idea, poplar with some people, that "everything in science is wrong." That is incorrect, of course. Not everything is science is "exactly right." But almost nothing is completely wrong. Apart from the (slightly mythical) flat Earth, there have been very few scientific theories that turned out to be completely wrong. Phlogiston is almost the only serious example.

Take a universe uniformly filled with hot plasma(*), with just tiny random variations in temperature and pressure. Allow it to expand and cool. See what marvels crystallise out. (*) Autocorrect made that "hot llama". A universe full of hot llamas?

I doubt anything you have thought of is worth $1 million. Or even $1. Your posts are getting increasingly incoherent. Unless you have something sensible (and scientific) to say about dark matter, maybe there is no point to this thread.

I don't see how the double slit experiment is any different from interacting with any other system. For example, you could have a simple computer program that draws random dots on the screen but when you hold a button down, it starts drawing lines instead. You are still controlling what it does, and deciding when it does it. That is true whether there is free will or not. You could have a random number generator control either the double slit experiment or the drawing program, so there is no choice involved. The effects would be the same. (This seems to be more relevant to the Philosophy section. But I will wait to see where you want to take the discussion.)

As it is very unclear(*) what you are saying, and it is presumably based on your lack of knowledge, then no I am not interested. (*) I mean, impossible to understand

Is this a TV program?

Well, you might convince people that you have a valid argument. Getting it published is up to you. Oh dear. You say one thing. I say another. What we need is a way to decide between them. So, how science solves this problem is to come up with a mathematical model that predicts what will happen and then comparing the model to what actually happens. Off you go. Do some science. You think neutron stars exist between us and the other planets? Wow. What do you base this on? Why do you think no one has noticed? And they probably would cause noticeable gravitational lensing, which would change as they passed between us and other planets. But, more importantly, we would see them. They would also cause the orbits of the planets to be different. You know that Neptune was discovered because the orbits of other planets did not seem quite right unless there was another (hypothetical) planet. That is why Neptune is sometimes called "the original dark matter". No. It is called dark because it doesn't interact with light.

Your posts are pretty incomprehensible. Are you using Google translate? If so, stop. If not, try it. Yes, the protons and neutrons are held together by the strong force. This has no effect on the electrons. The electrons are there because of the electric charge of the protons. That is why there are the same number of protons and electrons. Only electrons (and the electromagnetic force) is involved in chemical reactions.

It does not seem simple or intuitive. And you have not shown (mathematically) that it matches what we observe. The idea of the expansion of space is pretty simple and, although surprising,, not really unintuitive. There is no real reason that we should think the universe is static. I'm not sure how entropy is relevant. Perhaps you could explain (mathematically). Here is a good article on the entropy of the universe in the Big Bang model: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/04/15/ask-ethan-what-was-the-entropy-of-the-universe-at-the-big-bang/ Which is quite surprising.

Chemical reactions only involve the electrons, not protons or quarks. Uranium has 92 protons and 143 neutrons (in the case of U235) so it is nothing like hydrogen.

Good question. A few people seem to use it to justify their common sense ideas: "well if this simple explanation makes sense to me, I can't see why all that complicated science is needed"