Strange

I am assuming it took an expert in the subject about 30 seconds to dismiss the idea, when they thought of it. So the analysis is on a scrap of paper in the trash. People (including scientists) think of hundreds of possible solutions to problems. They are not going to publish a paper saying "I thought of this, but obviously it doesn't work. Then I thought if this, it took a bit longer but obviously that doesn't work either. ..." Of course it doesn't. There is a saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While it sounds clever, it is not always true. However, your claim that "absence of evidence proves I am right" is just nonsensical. If you think proton decay is a plausible mechanism, then it is up to YOU to demonstrate that.

Maybe you should stop ignoring what people write. I explained one scenario in which it is NOT neglected. I am suggesting that the reason may be that it doesn't work to explain the observations. As you have zero evidence for your claims, they are not worth considering. Please provide some evidence that this is the case. Soapboxing like this is against the rules. It is very sad that science has not found some magic way of making your desired mechanism come true, but we will just have to live with the disappointment. "No one has proved it isn't invisible pink unicorns."

It is a long time since I studied the history of science at this period but I remember mention of other attempts to formulate alternative gravitational moulds to explain Mercury's perihelion but none of them were satisfactory.

So maybe people have thought: "Oh I wonder if this could be explained by proton decays ..." [spends 2 minutes doing some calculations] "No, that doesn't work" I find that more plausible than your unsupported guesswork.

Citation needed.

Maybe because, despite your guesses, it isn't actually a useful explanation. You know, when you actually model what is happening.

It is more important to learn the concepts of algorithms, data structures, design patterns, etc. The languages you use will depend on the sort of work you do. But you need to be able to pick up a new language quickly, because almost no one uses just one language. You could start with Python. There are lots of tutorials and examples online. It can teach you most of the things you need to know.

What do you base that on? There are several hypothetical decay modes. None of them correspond to that description. Completely neglected? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay

You have been given details that you have chosen to ignore.

Physicists always have everything in the possibilities to consider. One of the explanations explored when the energy gap in beta decay was noticed (eventually explained by neutrinos) was that energy might not always be conserved. You don't get more fundamental than that. And proton decay has not been "disproved". That would be pretty much impossible.

The bigger question is: when will we be able to send the Terminator back in time?

! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 says: " Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone."

Physics is the human understanding of the mathematical models and how they relate to observations and measurements.

Oh, very good. 👏

If by "visceral" you mean "gut feelings" etc. then the whole point of science is to avoid that sort of unreliable "knowledge". Nonsense. (And also, not what you said. But then communication your ideas clearly was never your forte.) Most new ideas are created by groups. So you think that if you use Newton's laws of motion to calculate the path of a projectile, you will come up with a different answer then someone else? That is irrelevant because we are talking about scientific models. You know, math and stuff. (Somehow I am not surprised that you have no idea what a scientific model is. There seems to be no field in which you cannot demonstrate your profound lack of knowledge.) That is not what I said. You seem to be having problems reading now. Oh, please. You are just embarrassing yourself. "In logic, the law of excluded middle is ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

! Moderator Note You already have one thread where you are demonstrating your ignorance. I think one is quite enough

This has been answered. He found several different species. Then he observed that they had different shaped beaks. Then he came up with an explanation for why their beaks were different. This explanation has been repeatedly confirmed by more evidence. I don't know if he had an opinion on it. But it can certainly be argued that, for example, chihuahuas and Great Danes should be different species. It is just convention, that we regard them all as one. Remember, this is an arbitrary man-made distinction, so where we draw the boundaries between species is flexible and changes with more information. There are populations that were thought to be one species but, after DNA analysis, they have been categorised as two species. And the reverse has happened as well. Evolution very obviously happens in nature and is witnessed all the time. It has been known about for thousands of years. It is daft to deny that. What Wallace and Darwin did is propose an explanation for how evolution happens. That explanation has been shown to be correct. "Finch" is not a species. The birds known as finches are made up of several genera and hundreds of species. There is no species called "DOG". Both microevolution and macroevolution occur. That is an observable fact. New species arise from evolution. That is an observable fact. The theory of evolution (and genetics) explain how and why this happens. You can keep denying it, but the evidence is strongly against you. Actually, we do have evidence in the fossil record (and in living species) of exactly this happening. Why do you keep focussing on Darwin and ignoring the evidence? And who said whales walk on land? If you are resorting to stupid fallacies like this, you don't have much of an argument. Yes it has. The world is a truly amazing place. You should take your nose out of that Book and learn about it. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/ https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/speciation.php https://www.pnas.org/content/114/23/6074 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged

I doubt the OP understands it either!

Not entirely true. But so what? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. When science produces a result it is equally valid whatever your personal ideas are. We all benefit from scientific progress (unless you reject it). Nice straw man. No one said that. But the fact that equality can be proved, means that we can have a certain level of confidence in the consistency of models. It is then a matter of comparing that model (the map) to observations (the terrain) and refining it as necessary. When it comes to science, for example gravity or evolution, we do not each have a unique model. If you are talking about views outside of science, then, well... duh and thank you, Captain Obvious. One of the roles of philosophy is to explore what the roots of belief and knowledge are. (As someone who knew anything at all about philosophy would know.) So hardly irrelevant. (And I think most people with some understanding of philosophy or science would say that knowledge can never be complete.) Many people have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to put philosophy on a formal basis starting from fixed definitions. Some very interesting results have come from such work. Christ. Give us some warning when you are about to throw in a non-sequitur like that. I think the sudden change of direction has given me whiplash. Please provide some evidence that "most people" believe this. So you don't believe in "laws" but you do believe in "logic" underlying reality. Would that be the "laws of logic", by any chance.

Talking of species, as we were in another thread, the idea that two species cannot inter-breed or hybridise is shown to be false in many examples. Here is an amazing example of a hybrid of two different species that are also from two different genera, and even different families: https://www.quantamagazine.org/extra-dna-may-make-unlikely-hybrid-fish-possible-20200805/

I think one subtle point that is often overlooked, and can be important, is that "species" is an arbitrary distinction invented by humans for ease of categorising and cataloguing organisms. It doesn't't really correspond to anything specific in nature. For example, Darwin's finches are biologically isolated (hence regarded as different species) mainly by geographical separation. In many cases, they could interbreed if brought together. So, even though "inability to breed" is commonly thought of as the definition of species, it is only part of it. A number of different factors are used to help draw the (arbitrary) line between populations. (This obviously relates to the chicken-and-egg discussion in another thread.)

This, rather sadly, demonstrates your ignorance of science. A "theory" in science is the closest we get to "true"; it means a detailed idea or explanation that is supported by evidence. In the case of evolution by natural selection (the Wallace-Darwin theory), this is one of the theories with the most evidence and a well-understood mechanism. There is literally no justification for rejecting it. ! Moderator Note This sort of preaching is against the rules. Do not do it again.

It would be quite easy to write a script to test this. (But I’m not going to!) It reminds me of the Collatz Conjecture, which has been described as the most dangerous idea in mathematics

I guess you mean “finches”? They were different species because they were biologically isolated. They had different diets and, therefore, different beaks