EdEarl

You have already started the process, and probably are doing more than only post on this forum. More than likely, you have already considered anything I may suggest. Nonetheless.... You need to raise awareness of the public to generate enough interest that public clamor will encourage international experts to meet and discuss this issue. Make an 18 minute video discussing the issue and publish it on youtube. Propose to a TEDx committee that you be one of their presenters. Perhaps your presentation will become a TED Talk. Good luck.

yes

tyvm That is a good way to say it.

I think your interest in big bang cosmology is fantastic, and that you wish to test your idea (hypothesis) shows initiative. The big bang occurred a very long time ago, and there is no way to look at the event to see what happened in order to perform your test. The method cosmologists use to verify their hypothesis involves advanced math. Although, the idea of what they do is fairly simple. They start with astronomy data, the position, speed and direction galaxies are moving, and calculate where those galaxies would be in the past, how long ago in the past all of them would collide, and what would happen in during such a collision. Similarly they calculate what will happen in the future. However, some things are unknown, which means the calculations cannot be perfect. Sometimes, a scientist must make assumptions instead of having data; consequently, different scientists may get different results from their calculations. In short, unless you are willing to study hard for a long time, you will be unable to test your hypothesis. I suspect someone will explain where your hypothesis does not agree with calculations that have already been made, which many scientists agree upon. My explanation of the process used to verify a cosmological hypothesis is too simple to be accurate; thus, I expect someone will correct my explanation, too. Good luck in your quest to learn about cosmology.

I do not understand how the above question relates to the topic of this thread, "Is computer programming theoretical?" The answer to "Is computer programming theoretical?" is both yes and no, depending on what you are doing. The answer to whether you are a good programmer or not depends on who is evaluating your skill. Generally, programmer skill is evaluated by an employer or teacher, who assigns work and determines if you work quickly and accurately enough. IMO your questions cannot be answered here.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Observational_history Does this mean the light we see is 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years old, but we see out to about 46 billion light years distance? The CMB comes to us further than the oldest galaxies, but according to the figure titled "Big Bang Explosion, 13.7 billion years" it is 13.7 billion years old. See figure above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Big_Bang_model I am still confused.

String Theory as applicable to physics should be mentioned. IMO. It is a confusing name. I believe the same is true of M-theory, F-theory, and a few other theories. See: Should science drop the word 'theory' out of its vocabulary? Given this caveat, I agree with the previous posts in this thread that define of hypothesis and theory. Languages change, and we must adapt.

I understand some of the reason for 96*109 LY size. However, I am confused. What is meant by (my emphasis) And, why does that differ from what we have been actually able to see. The following two quotes, indicate inflation occurred before the CMB. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Radiation From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation Does inflation account for the 96*109 LY size? If so, why do they refer to it as observable? If not, then at some later point the universe must have expanded faster than the speed of light, which AFAIK would make the additional size unobservable.

One of the really big worries is the sea warming to the point that methane hydrate thaws and releases vast quantities of methane into the atmosphere. It is a huge unknown, and 3 degrees is not expected to cause it. But, if it does, we definitely should have worried before it happened, because afterward is too late. Estimates include many megatons of explosions. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrate

I voted other, because the dictionary definition of realism was ambiguous; though, it seemed that realism was related to the way we sense reality. However, we know from physics that our senses do not perceive the quantum world, and thereby lie to us. Things are almost entirely empty space, yet we sense solids, liquids and gasses. Basically, I do not know what real is true means or what anti-real is true means, but neither one seems right. Other seemed to be the best choice, because I think we do not know.

Having suffered from chronic pain after my back operation, I have some experience, and went to 6 different pain specialists--none helped. Doctors always ask a person to rate their pain (1 low through 10 high) and describe it as constant, shooting, piercing, throbbing, etc. AFAIK fainting from pain is a myth. IMO pain in missing body parts is a real phenomenon, but not one I have suffered. However, my feet are numb, except for some pain that bothered me for about 8 years. Meditation helped relieve it; although, no medication not even morphine helped. In my experience any level of pain can be endured, and pain doesn't get any worse than 10.

It is nearly impossible to hide one's identity form a skilled hacker, once you post on the internet. And, this link shows how dogged some people are at finding the originator of something, no matter how trivial. Although, there is no guarantee you will eventually be recognized for a new idea or thing, ones chances are pretty good IMO.

It depends on the person, their knowledge, and their resources. It is unlikely an individual can make a motor-generator better than one bought, but not impossible. On the other hand, getting a fraction of a percent more efficiency might be very expensive. I do not know enough about where the inefficiencies occur to make such a judgement. I do know that General Electric has been making good motors since Steinmetz worked for them. I believe a project of this nature has benefit, whether or not one makes one with improved efficiency, or even if one only studies the technology and does not build anything. Generally motor electromagnets are laminated of soft iron plates with insulation between them to prevent eddy currents between plates. One might explore using soft iron square rods with insulation between them to reduce eddy currents. An ideal material would be one that did not conduct electricity but did conduct magnetism. Perhaps one could make a plastic with embedded iron filings to use as the magnetic conductor electric insulator. However, I do not know how much energy is lost in current laminates, so I do not know how much (if any) efficiency improvement is possible. Moreover, someone has probably thought of these ideas before and found them wanting. Cryogenics might provide improved efficiencies via superconductivity, some research has been done on cryogenic motors. Such a design for an electromechanical battery could include magnetic bearings; that is, float the flywheel on a magnetic field. I suspect the cost of refrigeration reduces efficiency too much to be practical, but until someone does some research, perhaps does calculations, and maybe makes a working model, we will not know.

Bearings and vacuum are only part of making an efficient electromechanical battery. You must also consider magnetic and electrical efficiency. Resistance in the wire used in motor-generator windings reduces efficiency. Current induced in the iron laminate used for electromagnets reduces efficiency. The phase angle between voltage and current in both motor and grid connection must be synchronized for greatest efficiency, which is made difficult because the grid phase angle changes continually. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_efficiency

Sorry, I meant publisher as a person (agent) who would keep their name secret, yet forward necessary communications.

Authors often only make their pseudonym public, and give their real name to their publisher.

Hoping this day stacks up to be spectacular. Happy Birthday!

I'm saying feeling and reacting without rational thought is typical of everyone. Villain asked how it was relevant, and I related it to the OP, which was about religious people.

IMO It explains the saying, "Do not confuse me with the facts." For example, why the phenomenon of split brains is not significant to religious people.

True, the only radar I know of intended for use outside the Earth's atmosphere is Arecibo. Although, AFAIK they have not transmitted in many years.

Why do you say it is a mistaken idea, insufficient power due to distance attenuating the signal, absorption of the signal by interstellar matter, or noise from other sources hiding the signal? What is SETI searching for with radio telescopes? From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seti#Realized_Interstellar_Radio_Message_projects Some of the most powerful military radars, now abandoned, were on the DEW line. Their peak (pulse) output was 160KW with a 400W average. Now that satellites provide the military with early warning, powerful military radar is not nearly as important as it once was. On the other hand, clear channel radio broadcasts of up to 100KW continue today, and that is continuous power, not a microsecond pulse as radar uses. Moreover, the military prefer to use stealth, but radar provides a beacon for enemies to track ones location, which is another reason the military need to avoid powerful radar signals. Thus, the military use spread spectrum transmissions that transmit a signal on several frequencies simultaneously, with the frequencies continuously changing. Only a receiver programmed to receive the same sequence of frequencies can detect such signals. Low total power, spread spectrum radar and communication provides stealth and avoids high power on any frequency. These techniques will prevent SETI from detecting military signals, even from Earth.

That is not rational, and I will not follow you down an irrational path.

Thinking is harder than feeling, it requires more of our energy reserves. Moreover, feelings can be addictive, not so for thinking. Convincing a feeling addict to adopt thinking instead is harder than convincing a heroin addict to get clean.

I do not understand your question. Radio, television, and telephone signals emanate from the earth 7x24 and travel into space in all directions. Those signals can be picked up by civilizations on other stars if anyone is listening. Moreover, a powerful telescope on an exoplanet can detect signs of life from light reflected from the earth into space, such as oxygen in our atmosphere produced by plant life and green reflected into space from leaves of plants. As long as we transmit radio, TV and cell phone signals, and as long as light is reflected from the earth into space, we are detectable by alien life. And, ATM no technology exists or has been proposed that is capable of hiding signs of life in all of the EMF (radio and light) signals leaving the Earth. I have no more access than any other citizen.

We see using light, bats, dolphins and other animals "see" using sound. Bats routinely catch small insects (mosquitoes) that we have difficulty seeing except in swarms. Why wouldn't sound appears as an image to those animals. Doctors make images of fetus inside women.