Strange

This is wrong.

If you listed all the mathematicians who contributed to special and general relativity I suspect it would look like a phone book (if anyone remembers them - phone books I mean, not relativity)

I posted this earlier in the thread, it might be of interest in case coffeesippin missed it :

https://www.livescience.com/63854-stephen-hawking-says-no-god.html So as Einstein had a concept of "god" (however abstract) and Hawking famously denied god, it is hard to see where to go from there...

I think you'll find that scientists can be a lot ruder to one another than is allowed on this forum. (And Einstein's "god" was not your god)

! Moderator Note No. If you can't follow the rules, perhaps you should take a break from posting.

! Moderator Note This is completely unacceptable. Rule 1: Be civil.

If it is completely wrong, probably not. But if there is a germ of an idea which then goes wrong, it could be corrected through discussion with colleagues, etc. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that happened quite often, science being the collaborative exercise it is.

I will try and watch it at some point. It sounds interesting.

That was an example of hoax/fraud, not stealing someone's ideas. I am not aware of any examples of the latter. Although there has been a tendency, in the past, for some female scientists to not be given the credit they deserve (Rosalind Franklin, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, etc) Incidentally: https://www.etymonline.com/word/skulduggery So it long predates Piltdown Man. I have to say, it may seem unpleasant, but this resistance to new ideas is one of the reasons that science works as well as it does. Einstein was famously resistant to the implications of quantum theory, but that forced people to examine the theory more deeply and come up with experiments to test his objections. It made it a better theory.

It is there in the post after the one where Studiot you mention it.

I haven't watched the video (as usual). Is the satellite built just for this? Or are they using an existing satellite?

Droll. But no. I'm just wondering if the cost saving (if there is one, rather than just a technology demonstration) is because a large number of bridges across a large area of mountainous terrain and multiple islands can be checked from satellite, rather than having to send a team of surveyors out to each one.

Is "cheaper" for a single bridge? Does it make a difference if they are spread out over 400,000 km2 and thousands of islands?

They wouldn't (except at the equator on the summer solstice, perhaps). In the northern hemisphere, the sun normally rises and sets south of you. (But I guess you don't literally mean 180º) But, of course, the line that bisects the angle would obviously also tell you where north was as well, just because it is opposite south!

Forget the facts they are blogs, they reference scientific papers on the subject. You might find one or two papers arguing that there is no increase in CO2 or that it has no effect or that it doesn't come from human activity, or whatever. But for each of those (assuming they are peer-reviewed and published) you will find multiple responses pointing out the errors. Again, just because the science disagrees with you doesn't mean it is biased. It just means you are mistaken in your beliefs. Get over it. You know those threads where religious people argue against evolution? Well, you have found yourself in their position on this one. You are making an entirely faith-based argument against over 100 years of science. So you object to people referring to blogs written by scientists using results from scientific papers, but you are using the opinions of random people on forums as an argument? What was that about bias?

Which isn't science. If you really think that climate science is like religion then you are seriously deluded

I'm not sure what you mean. It presents the science. The science may not support your beliefs but that doesn't mean it is not balanced.

Al the information comes from published science so I'm not sure why you think it is worthless. The team behind it include a range of expertise including some who work in climate science. Just because it disagrees with your prejudices.....

I'm not sure what you think is wrong with that. People study a subject to certain level of expertise. Some of them then go on to teach that subject. It seems pretty normal and sensible to me. Do you object to historians, geologists, theologians, chemists, linguists, archeologists etc. doing that? One could argue that there would be a benefit of teachers getting some work experience outside of academia before going into teaching, but I can't really see it making a big difference.

Ironically, for the purpose of this thread, Hoyle said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/512cde83-3afb-3048-9ece-dba774b10f89

That has never been the picture. Hoyle came up with the name Big Bang for a radio program he did on the competing theories (because his had a name "steady state", so he wanted a snappy name for the other).

The difference is that an explosion would be the expulsion of matter from some central point into an empty universe. The dynamics of that do not match what we observe. What theory says is that the universe has always been uniformly full of matter (obviously not completely uniform because we have some clumpiness like galaxies, etc). The universe itself is expanding allowing the matter in it to cool (basic thermodynamics). That is not the reason for inflation. It is to solve the "horizon problem" - the fact that the conditions in the early universe were extremely uniform, to reach this level of homogeneity requires that the universe was much smaller than simple expansion would allow. So a period of rapid inflation is hypothesised as a possible explanation. So far, there is no evidence for inflation (and at least one of the inventors of the idea no longer supports it). And there are other possible explanations so the jury is out on that. It might require a theory of quantum gravity to answer it. Modifying theories when new evidence is available is one way that science progresses.

At least the paper has a suggestion for a test using gravitational waves

I like it because it sounds a bit Yoda-ish or maybe Yiddish, but that is purely due to the omission of one word.