pantheory

Gulf stream warming is an important theory with a great many facts and studies to support it. https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/wxfacts/North-Atlantic-Drift-Gulf-Stream.htm http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/impact/gulf_stream.shtml https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270652051_The_Role_of_the_Gulf_Stream_in_European_Climate There are arguments proposing the lesser importance of Gulf Stream currents in moderating colder climates. https://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/Gulf.pdf The possibility that the currents of the Gulf stream will slow down in the coming years to chill-out western Europe, is a hypothesis that is not well-supported by most mainstream meteorologists.

Many here at the X forum either think the person we call Jesus of the bible was a fable, or if he was a real person most of the stories of the New Testament are fantasy. From this perspective it would seemingly be folly to discuss a possible psychological profile involving such a fabled person.

Coal is a very cheap (although dirty) fuel source. Many mines are on the earth's surface with little relative cost concerning its discovery. After digging it out It often requires little processing other than breaking it up into stokeable size pieces. It is easily hauled without expensive processing, by train, truck, or ship. It is a far cheaper fuel source for electricity than any alternative, providing that sulfur and other of the most expensive emission control processes are not needed or legally required. China is the biggest producer and consumer of coal. In poorer countries I believe coal will continue as a major fuel source until at least the 22nd century. https://www.mining-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-biggest-coal-consumers-4353695/

This is an interesting possibility. The up-welling of nutrients from deeper ocean waters could bring up more nutrients for zooplankton enabling them to grow and reproduce faster. Zooplankton are the bottom of the food chain for most oceanic life. The more zooplankton, the more fish and oceanic life in general. Secondly, the deeper the waters, the colder they are. Bringing up deeper and cooler ocean waters would cool the surface winds of the oceans to some extent which would lessen global temperatures. More research will be needed to determine the realities of this process. It has been preliminary determined that by man adding land based nutrients to ocean waters, especially in the far north, would result in greatly increased zooplankton growth in those areas. Such plant based zooplankton can consume a great deal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as well as increasing fish and oceanic animal proliferation in such areas.

As awesome as the solar system scale and related distances are, imagine the scale of distances between stars. For instance, the distance to our closest star is 4.2 light years away. This distance is about 8,800 times greater than the farthest planet from the sun, Neptune, while its diameter is only about 10% larger than that of Jupiter.

Anushka, I think you get too emotionally involved in trivial encounters. If you don't feel comfortable with someone just move on. When someone is friendly toward you, in time it may develop into a friendship, if not move on to others who appreciate your friendship efforts. I'm sure you have better things to do than fret over trivialities. Work to make a better life for yourself; befriend people who reciprocate your friendship efforts, and sometimes help those that need and appreciate your friendliness. Such goodwill, in time, will likely shorten your own path to happiness and lead to many happy relationships.

He is unique, but still a good guy IMO. If he would ever see the light of science, instead of the imagined heavenly ghost, I would expect that his good character would not change, and that he will start to think, especially if he hangs around here long enough.

True

disillusioned, Science works by changing the model to fit the evidence. If the evidence doesn't match the model, then our thinking is flawed, so the model must be amended. Yes, this is how theories are amended. But theories can also fall out of favor over time followed by replacing the old theory with a new one. This is also done the same way that you described. Science works by changing the model to fit the evidence. If the evidence doesn't match the theory in a major way, then our thinking is flawed, so the theory will be replaced. The last time a major theory was replaced (that I can recall) was about 100 years ago when General Relativity replaced Newtonian Gravity. General Relativity, the present theory of gravity, is also subject to being amended or replaced if future evidence does not match the theory. Although amendments to theory happen more frequently, major theories are also subject to being replaced for the same reason. In the case of the subject link, dark matter is presently a hypothesis of the Big Bang model. The BB theory existed before this hypothesis was proposed, and would probably continue as the preferred model if both the "dark hypothesis" were replaced by other hypothesis. For the theory itself to be replaced, its major tenets would have to be contradicted by strong evidence. IMO If this would happen, it should not be a jaw-dropping surprise to anyone since this is the way science works.

The subject thread is a Galaxy Missing its Dark Matter. I commented that I am presently writing a paper on this subject, to be published in a well-known Scientific Journal. I also wrote and published another paper in 2014 related to this subject. My area of expertise is Cosmology so I have expertise in this subject. All views other than the presently accepted views in science are non-standard. Historically science has made some of its greatest strides as a result of views that were non-standard at the time. When asked further details concerning my own perspective and model, I said that I would gladly supply details but anything different from this subject would need to be in another thread started by someone other than myself. I understand that nearly everyone here has traded the falsities of religion for the understandings of science, but I do not think it is wrong for such persons to realize that theories in science can change over time since science is a self-correcting process. The above observation could be an example.

Of course I would gladly do this but it should be in its own thread and based upon a question by someone other than myself, a question like yours above. As far as the difference between the words "theory" and "hypothesis," such distinction must be based upon the accepted definitions of both words in a scientific context. Most theorists consider the word "theory" as being only those hypothesis that have been seriously considered by mainstream astronomers and theorists. By this definition ours is a generally unknown hypothesis.

No, an older universe and galaxies at the farthest distances should look the same as our local universe if we are correct. There have been a great many observations claiming that the distant universe looks very different but that, based upon our study and paper, is because they are determining distances incorrectly using the Hubble formula. This is based upon a physically expanding universe rather than space expanding or other possibilities. Based upon observations by the James Webb, I believe they will eventually realize that distant galaxies are the same as we observe close by if the pictures appear the same. On the other hand if they find only very young appearing bright blue galaxies many merging, with no red colored galaxies or stars, then the model that I am proposing, as well as all others predicting something different, would very likely be wrong. https://www.gemini.edu/node/74 The 13.8 billion year universe age is calculated based upon the Hubble formula. This formula correctly calculates distances up to about 9 billion light years, with an error factor of about 10% according to our evaluation and conclusions. But beyond that distance it begins to calculate distances with greater errors, by a error factor of about 3 at the farthest possible distances now observable. your quote: "For your hypothesis to be correct those two things would have to be wrong. Are you expecting the JW to present data that invalidates those two observations?" Yes, our proposal was that these distances are wrong because they were calculated by the Hubble formula. The idea is that if a picture taken by the James Webb at its farthest distance capability, looks almost the same as the now famous Hubble Ultra-Deep Field picture, then at least some will likely realize that something may be wrong with the present model. https://www.space.com/34171-hubble-telescope-ultra-deep-field-photos.html http://revolution-green.com/new-research-study-concluded-dark-energy-probably-exist/

My understanding is that the contract has already been signed for this hauling but it takes a whole year to haul a burg, so I don't know when the finding, cleaving and hauling process will begin.

Well, so far the evidence, in my opinion, is very strong in favor of our proposal. But in time if the proposal shows weaknesses, those objections must be overcome by more data. If we conclude there is validity to such arguments against it, we would first look to improve our proposal, remaining consistent with my own cosmological model. I believe that after the James Webb goes up, hopefully in late 2019, cosmologists will either almost prove their present BB model, or will find strong evidence against it. Unfortunately I thought the same thing would happen after the Hubble was fully functional. Instead they kept changing the BB model as contrary observations presented themselves. After the James Webb has been functioning for maybe 3 years, I expect that some BB theorists will propose a much older universe, while some others will be looking for alternative models.

You're certainly right. We expect heavy winds blowing against the forward progress of the conclusions of our paper. Following its publication we will write a press release explaining our findings in common language. I expect there will be some responses requesting our calculations based upon the equations shown within the paper. In the paper there must be convincing evidence and related arguments concerning our claims. The equations and calculated results concerning these galaxies must be repeatable by others, including the testing of many more spiral galaxies as to our conclusions. Next we must promote our paper seeking to find at least one or more observational astronomers that are interested in testing the conclusions of our paper by observation. if nothing of consequence is found contrary to our findings, we expect to write another paper explaining what we expect that the James Webb space telescope will find that will be contrary to what astronomers and most theorists will expect concerning the most distant galaxies in general. Afterwards, if we continue to believe strongly in our conclusions, we will try to promote them in the astrophysics community. If observational evidence, like the link above, is strong enough we would expect that some practitioners will begin to question the validity of the dark matter hypothesis, or even the standard Big Bang model. The above findings in the subject link may be a start to such questioning.