You won't get any sense out of river. I once made the mistake of taking him seriously, on the subject of water, and this thread was the result: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/has-there-been-an-improved-understanding-of-water.135771/ It is quite funny in places, if you have a few minutes of spare time to read it. But after that experience I resolved not to have anything more to do with river. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I take seriously the comments by yourself and paddoboy, but recall that one can never step into the same river twice. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
By the vast majority of cosmologists, many years ago. It has nothing going for it, contradicts and ignores all our observational data. Getting down to the nitty gritty of it, and as you are also ignorant of what you support, your "opinion" obviously is just some anti mainstream phobia.
Yes we had a serious discussion on Water , exchemist . For you water is nothing more than the chemical bonds . I disagreed . While the chemical bonds are important , it does not explain the liquidity because of the bond . And the liquidity extends beyond the molecule its self . Whether exchemist responds to to this post , is in entirely up to him .
Here is an even funnier thread started by river.... http://www.sciforums.com/threads/how-did-the-earth-capture-the-moon.163122/
Thanks But the Dynamics , the Fluid Dynamics of the River ( literally a river ) , is constant and changing .
This is an excellent example of why your posts are often unintelligible. You begin the sentence with "But", implying a disagreement, or contradiction with my statement, yet your sentence agrees with my statement. The conclusion is that either you didn't understand my statement, or you can't write meaningful English. By the way, the hostile tone in my posts to you is there because of zero acknowledgement on your part that your posting style might just be a teeny-weeny bit deficient.
To your last statement ; My Cosmology , in pseudoscience . Would be a start . Deficient , I can't disagree . I just hate long drawn out explanations . They bore me .
If your explanations are not understood, or misunderstood by your audience, what's the frigging point of making them? Mind you, when they are understood you just come across as a classic Dunning-Kruger case study. I think we're done. I'll pop in from time to poke fun and in the hope you may actually change. I recommend you put me on Ignore. That would make official what you have essentially been doing during our conversations anyway.
Or more truthfully,[that which you claim allegiance to] you are simply ignorant of the science which you make silly claims about, as well as the mainstream stuff which you are also ignorant about....case in point...your past ranting re the Moon not rotating because it has one side facing the Earth, and your complete debacle re interpreting what Asimov said and actually meant.
There are many who are willing to give my theory a look , and have done so . The objections have been very few . Ask Questions . Why is there space ?
None that I am aware of. Cosmology doesn't interest me much. But if you want a competition as to who can list the most things science has not yet accounted for I'll play - if you pay me $10,000 if I win.
The Physical needs Space and Space needs the Physical . Which came first . Or have both always existed for infinity , together .
Explained to you many times. Same answer as to why is there time. Of course our best estimates and theories do not tell us why, just what we observe. Space and time [henceforth known as spacetime] evolved from a hot dense state at t+10-43 seconds. What exists before that is speculative. But that does not give any credence to the continued and ongoing nonsense that you continually claim, as per the nonsensical plasma/electric/magnetic universe hypothetical. But at the risk of repeating myself, all that has been explained to you many times, and all we get in return is trolling....hence your banishment to the fringes or as I like to call it, the fairy tale section.
