Darnok

We had few natural events that are cause of that Before you hit conspiracy theory button read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/solar-radiation-governance/DES2391_SRMGI%20report_web.pdf http://www.srmgi.org/ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032113008460 http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1528.html I wonder what are going to be local and global side effects

Very simple question: why is the sky dark at night?

Yes they have, but you have to go on level of abstraction even higher than my posts. If you can't force your self to do that use Google it should find you some clues how to interpret his words.

So it is no mater what I eat it won't hurt me, interesting. I don't get bold part. DNA vaccine != vaccine... or this is again only my interpretation?

Look at OP article it did change meaning of every genetic experiment ever released and used in production on living humans, on animals or any other products we eat or in DNA vaccines. After those studies you can't say we did understood any DNA modifications or that we predicted any harmful effects, because we didn't! Companies making any DNA modifications for years had no idea what are long term consequences and by long term consequences I mean few generations ahead, not alzheimer or cancer on people they were study today. What is even more interesting we can't say we can ever be able to understand DNA engineering, because we can't say today how many different meanings there is encoded in DNA. Maybe there are 3 or 4 or more ways to decode DNA, so any modifications puts people at risk, I doubt it anyone aware of danger and harmful effects, that may occur in future generations, would ever take that risk.

http://www.who.int/biologicals/areas/vaccines/dna/en/ This one is just great

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/ Interesting what impact it has on GMO and vaccines

Show me evidence for this "age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years"' date=' not model, not result of simulation, not assumption, not hypothesis, not equation written on paper, but evidence [url']https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE_1523-0901 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_140283 age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years No point in arguing with results of simulations and models created to prove hypothesis and get rewards Big bang hypothesis is just a scenario full of assumptions nothing more.

23/17 is useless, 2 isn't if can't see difference I can't help you. Yea, here I can agree with you and that is why I improved Bode's Law a bit and removed 0.4 and 0.3 But first you have to understand what is Bode's Law about, it is not about finding current orbits, because that is the result of interaction of various forces for billions of years. Bode's Law is to find pattern in very young solar system, maybe it depends of size of star (just like habitable zone) or maybe our solar system was created. My formula: (ups forgot to write phi=1.6180339... golden ratio) [table=width: 380] [tr] [td][/td] [td]k[/td] [td]predicted AU[/td] [td]real AU[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Mercury[/td] [td]0[/td] [td]0.404896429891662[/td] [td]0.387[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Venus[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]0.723206316075452[/td] [td]0.723[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Earth[/td] [td]2[/td] [td]1.041516202259240[/td] [td]1.0[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Mars[/td] [td]4[/td] [td]1.678135974626820[/td] [td]1.52[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Ceres[/td] [td]8[/td] [td]2.951375519361990[/td] [td]2.77[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Jupiter[/td] [td]16[/td] [td]5.497854608832310[/td] [td]5.2[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Saturn[/td] [td]32[/td] [td]10.590812787773000[/td] [td]9.54[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Uranus & Neptune[/td] [td]64[/td] [td]20.776729145654300[/td] [td]19.2[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Pluto[/td] [td]128[/td] [td]41.148561861416900[/td] [td]39.44[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Eris[/td] [td]256[/td] [td]81.892227292942100[/td] [td]67.7[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Planet-X [/td] [td]512[/td] [td]163.379558155993000[/td] [td]???[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Planet-Y[/td] [td]1024[/td] [td]326.354219882093000[/td] [td]???[/td] [/tr] [/table] I am not the only one that thinks there are at least two more large planets http://www.universetoday.com/118252/astronomers-are-predicting-at-least-two-more-large-planets-in-the-solar-system/ It is rubbish, inaccurate (accurate for apples and other objects of similar size ) and wrong in many cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Observations_conflicting_with_Newton.27s_formula Right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_orbit As far as I know our solar system has more than two bodies So how you tested it and how accurate results it gave you? Right I forgot 100% error is good fit for you Try to use it here: So you are using one classification method to claim other classification method is wrong That is very good example of your logic or lack of it. This is wrong, Eris was discovered in 2005 and Pluto in 1930, both of them didn't made full orbit since we observe them, so only thing you can measure is estimated or simulated result. No evidence of any or none gravitational perturbation can be delivered from so short observation periods.

Anyone mentioned this one https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25894-meet-the-electric-life-forms-that-live-on-pure-energy ?

Like this one http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html ?

So science is about bargain about what number means what? Or what planet parameter is more important... is it radius, orbit, mass, shape etc? How about create classification that is based on universal mathematical values or patterns?

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.353 Can you see the difference? Fudging numbers really, I accepted 120% error or you did? It is about finding pattern that means something not another stupid calculated sequence of meaningless numbers that any software can generate. Variance in masses has nothing to do with this, just take À, phi or 1 as Earth radius and do the math for Moon, Venus or Mercury, it will have meaning. While taking 1.353 as Earth radius means nothing. And now replace "Bodes law" in that sentence with any other name of law or rule You missed post when I said you should pick order planet, than Earth, as base 2? What are rules for current categorisation of planets? Planet radius? It is super artificial and it is exactly as you said circular reasoning or even more stupid we bargain about specific number. If we found too many planets just rise requirements higher and it is done, this is super dumb. More natural and universal way would be to use Bodes law or any other law that predicts radius of planets or their orbits, to decide what is planet and what is not. The powers of two is not some random number sequence. We should base our laws and categorisation on universal math values not number picked by one guy and accepted or negated by others.

Of course you can construct best fit "law" using numbers with any number of decimal places, I don't argue with that The key is to use base numbers that have meaning like power of two in Bodes Law or like math constants. And you can't do that with any random set of data Extremely good fit... look at Uranus 8.7E25 3.93E25 and now calculate % error... 121%? Eris and Pluto fit better when starting point is Mercury and Earth has value 1.0, I didn't calculated Bodes Law for other starting points. Also keep in mind we have thread where people are arguing about what space object is "planet" and what isn't. While you require for single law to predict orbits of planets, dwarf planets and asteroids

This is wrong, you should do something similar to Bodes law and use power of two or other number sequence or only mathematical constants. And those results are terrible, I was looking at Giza Pyramid to find pattern in planets radius, using only mathematical constants (À, phi, e...) I was trying to avoid numbers, and every difference larger 50km rejected as inaccurate.

So if someone is good at 3 first areas he can't have higher IQ than incredible talented but only physicist?

Chaos doesn't exist, it is just order that we don't understand or we didn't found natural pattern to describe it Bode's Law is nice but like someone said it does predict only semi-major axis and nothing more. Someone said he can find formulas for any number sequence, so please make formula for (all planets from table above): - planets radius (in order they are in solar system and second from smallest radius to largest), - axial tilt - orbital inclination

As for improved version you are right it was made ~2009, so it is tweaked to fit our solar system. But when I am looking at original version a = 0.4 + 0.3*k where k = 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 2^4... etc etc it is more interesting Discovery of: Uranus in 1781 Ceres in 1801 Neptune in 1846 (like I said before Neptune and Uranus could form in same orbit, we know something happen with both of them we don't know exactly what) Pluto in 1930 (if we skip Neptune, the 39AU fits Pluto orbit, law predicted there is planet at 39AU and that is true what is wrong is human interpretation and name) Eris in 2005 ~67AU (10 years observations is not much since estimated orbit around Sun is ~558.04 years and in 2014, its distance from the Sun is 96.4 astronomical units) So it had predictive power back in 1715 [table=width: 350] [tr] [td][/td] [td]k[/td] [td]predicted AU[/td] [td]real AU[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Mercury[/td] [td]0[/td] [td]0.4[/td] [td]0.39[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Venus[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]0.7[/td] [td]0.72[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Earth[/td] [td]2[/td] [td]1.0[/td] [td]1.0[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Mars[/td] [td]4[/td] [td]1.6[/td] [td]1.52[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Ceres[/td] [td]8[/td] [td]2.8[/td] [td]2.77[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Jupiter[/td] [td]16[/td] [td]5.2[/td] [td]5.2[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Saturn[/td] [td]32[/td] [td]10.0[/td] [td]9.54[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Uranus & Neptune[/td] [td]64[/td] [td]19.6[/td] [td]19.2[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Pluto[/td] [td]128[/td] [td]38.8[/td] [td]39.44[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Eris[/td] [td]256[/td] [td]77.2[/td] [td]67.7[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Planet-X [/td] [td]512[/td] [td]154[/td] [td]???[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Planet-Y[/td] [td]1024[/td] [td]307.6[/td] [td]???[/td] [/tr] [/table]

You are right, but your children can be smarter than their children, because of evolution, while with gene engineering it would be impossible?

So who is going to be second category citizen the one with modified genes or we? How long it would take for super-IQ humans to start to think they are better and we are just using their resources while they would use those resources much better because they are smarter?

and ....-Germany (during WWII) why I can't write ....?

That is wrong question, first you should ask do we really need genetic engineering to become smarter.

Improved version is correct for both of them http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/rmaa/RMxAA..47-1/PDF/RMxAA..47-1_dflores.pdf As for original version you shouldn't compare current orbits, but those from time when our solar system was very young. Of course we can't be sure how much orbits of planets could change over time. I read that some planets orbits were changed a lot http://www.space.com/4755-trading-cosmic-places-neptune-uranus-swapped-spots.html Uranus and Neptune could affect each other so much, they even could be at same orbit at beginning, but over time one was ejected. So the original equation can be right if at beginning of our solar system Neptune and Uranus both were at orbit 19AU, Pluto at 38.8AU and 77AU is very close to Eris. I know, no evidence, wishful thinking etc etc, but does science ever followed, to find proof? If that would be the case then in the SI we wouldn't have units like time and mass, because until today there is no evidence of their existence. The only thing we have is models, assumptions and calculations, for which scientists adjust the sequence of numbers just like the one we are talking about

This law predicted orbit of Ceres. Now show me solar system with few planets that is build with your sequence. There is huge difference between writing any random sequence on paper and finding curve that intersects all points AND finding sequence in universe and finding curve, because if that sequence was created by physics then equation (if it is right) can predict next number

Hehe it is discredited because it is so simple, but super complicated simulation is ok? This law led to discovery of Ceres and improved version predicts orbits of all planets (except Eris) its also leads to the obvious conclusion, so it should be replaced by more complicated law