Strange

Then why haven't they? They could set up a website (or a science discussion forum). Or a TV station. Or just walk the streets shaking hands. Other people have found ways to communicate easily, so why would God and your Superiors make it so hard?

A better analogy might be dew forming on a cobweb: http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/305/b/8/cobweb_by_drezdany-d4eqoy3.jpg Where the web is the drak matter structure and the drops are galaxies (or galaxy clusters). Look at the two pictures on the right here: http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/virgo/millennium/#pictures (This is the source of the dark matter picture) The top picture shows the distribution of galaxies, the bottom one shows the distribution of drak matter. I think the dark matter structure forms and provides a place where there is enough gravity for gas clouds to collapse and form galaxies. In the case of individual galaxies, the dark matter and the galaxy move together. (Otherwise we wouldn't see the consistent pattern of the density of dark matter in the centre of the galaxy.) There is an example where two galaxies have collided and we can see that the dark matter has become separated from the galaxies (a bit like a passenger being thrown from a car crash). http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html

It is not a good analogy. Just because one thing looks a bit like another thing, doesn't mean there is any conneection. You are comparing a 2D surface with a 3D structure. We know that dark matter and galaxies are located together in this large scale structure of the universe. In fact, from simulations, it seems pretty clear that the dark matter is an important factor in creating this structure. You seem to be confusing dark matter and dark energy.

Can you calculate the diameter of this black hole? Can you tell us what stops the rest of the "atom" falling into it?

"What style of language do scientists really prefer?" https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/what-style-of-language-do-scientists-really-prefer/

Theories are proven false by evidence. Sunspots are also explained by current theory. Therefore there is no reason to accept your idea. And when has anyone seen a cross-section of a star? This is the fallacy of begging the question. No. I will ignore beliefs and stick with the evidence.

No evidence then? In which case, why should anyone take this seriously? Just because you say so?

That is because you don't provide any evidence. And that also means it is not a theory. Oh, and it's nonsense.

This is perfectly well explained by quantum theory. Does you theory make some predictions that would allow it to be distinguished from quantum theory? All of these can be done by existing theory. So you either need some direct evidence for the existence of "informatons" or you need to show that your theory makes predictions that allow it to be distinguished from existing theory. If you can't do either of these, then it makes no difference if these informations exist or not. In which case, we can employ Occam's razor and discount them.

That seems a reasonable opinion. Now you just need the science to catch up

Or maybe, just maybe, they don't exist. That would the usual conclusion about things for which there is zero evidence.

Who knows. That is philosophy (or religion) rather than physics. There is no evidence that is possible. No one knows.

Well, he seems to work in the area of climate science, which Carter doesn't. But that is getting dangerously close to "argument from authority". His point is that if Carter has any scientific arguments then they should be subjected to the usual peer-review process, not published in newspaper articles. I'm sure there have been many - which is why science doesn't rely on the opinions of individuals. Follow the money, as they say: http://www.desmogblog.com/bob-carter

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/minchin-denies-climate-change-manmade/2007/03/14/1173722560417.html

I agree, that will be tough. But you were asking them a question (I'm not sure how) so why wouldn't they respond directly? This begins to sound like the various excuses as to why God doesn't make his presence known.

This appears to be him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter#Global_warming_controversy https://www.skepticalscience.com/Bob_Carter_arg.htm http://www.desmogblog.com/bob-carter

I thought there was a prize at the end.

Could you summarize his views for those of us unable to watch the video?

Of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dream To some extent. Of course, people are hit by cars. One has to assume they didn't choose that.

Yes. Those dreams. Easy to control. Real life: hard to control.

I think you have that the wrong way round. It is easy to control dreams. It is really hard to have much meaningful control over real life.

Absolutely. There can be no doubt about it. The Imperial system is stupid and wasteful. The industrial standard was Unix, for a very long time. The only reason Apple's OS may be better is because it builds on the open-source movement's attempt to copy Unix (and stole some ideas from Xerox PARC).

Maybe we are being too subtle

But stars aren't pushed apart. Even nearby galaxies are not pushed apart. Also, it isn't clear whether you are talking about expanding space or dark energy, or both. If you want to replace the model of expanding space with this idea, then you need to show that general relativity is wrong. Good luck! It certainly seems to.

OK. So it is magnetic now, rather than electrostatic? In which case, the problems only increase. 1. Can you show that galaxies have a significant magnetic field? 2. Can you show what the force would be between two galaxies at cosmological distances? 3. Why wouldn't this magnetic force disrupt galaxies and galaxy clusters? (Given the shorter distances involved) 4. Can you explain why this would be a repulsive force, rather than an attractive force (depending on relative orientation)? 5. There are no magnetic monopoles, which means that the force would fall off as the cube of distance (I think). But gravity falls off as the square of distance. Therefore gravity would dominate as distance increased. So how does magnetism explain accelerating expansion? 6. If the effects of dark energy are caused by magnetism, what caused a change such that expansion began accelerating?