Comments by "Ronald Greene" (@ronaldgreene5733) on "Angela Collier " channel.

Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support. Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support.
4
Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support. Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support.
4
Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support. Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support.
2
Maybe this is somewhat relevant to your post. Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
Maybe it's a shame that the problem can exist in both directions, because education often does nothing to teach people to think for themselves in regard to new ideas. Should theories be presented as fact without question as is so often the case? Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support. Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support.
1
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
In support of your grandfather, the problem can exist in both directions, because education often does nothing to teach people to think for themselves in regard to new ideas. Should theories be presented as fact without question as is so often the case? Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
Maybe it's a shame that the problem can exist in both directions, because education often does nothing to teach people to think for themselves in regard to new ideas. Should theories be presented as fact without question as is so often the case? Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
@HunsterMonter . . More seriously, I suggest you develop your own initiative by which the majority of people find themselves in this forum . . Sponsored activity is very normal today for commercial and political purposes and subjects of controversy -- in the attempt to lead public debate.
1
 @HunsterMonter . . Repetition rather than comprehension decides for too many who don't want the responsibility.
1
@HunsterMonter . . "What are you talking about?" . . 😃 . . Thank you for your sponsored reply. People who are here of their own initiative have a genuine response.
1
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support. Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support.
1
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support.
1