Reply To: Animated nuclear reaction.

[texaslabrat]

Well, I’m glad you are ok with being wrong…it must come with practice.

And I think you need to work on your scientific lingo…actually MEASURING things is not a “theory”. The items I cited (did you even bother to read any of them? doubt it since you might actually have to admit the data don’t match your assumptions) are MEASUREMENTS. The theory comes in to make sense of said MEASUREMENTS. Just because the MEASUREMENTS don’t agree with your pet theory doesn’t invalidate them…especially when they have been continually confirmed and refined over time by independent researchers using a variety of methods.

Taking these MEASUREMENTS, combined with a simple conservation of energy calculation (I suppose you don’t believe in that, either?) trivially shows the situation that your assumptions are completely wrong. This isn’t an issue of philosophy..it’s about black and white, right and wrong, cold hard math. On a SCIENCE-based website..that distinction is important. Now that you’ve proven yourself incapable of processing new information and adjusting your own assumptions (you know, practice the “scientific method”)…I don’t think anyone will be taking your input seriously going forward. And that is my purpose with this exchange (since you asked) after you proved yourself to be incorrigibly unable to be educated. I suppose you’ll be arguing for the flat-earth theory next.

Have a nice day.