[Bored chemist]

In my theory the Hadean Eon should be placed before and the Archean Eon after the formation of the moon.

Your idea isn't a theory.
Your idea is wrong.

[The Spoon]

In my theory the Hadean Eon should be placed before and the Archean Eon after the formation of the moon.

Just stop posting crap.

[Yaniv (OP)]

In my theory Archean and Proterozoic Eons should merge together characterized by increasing sea levels and global temperatures.

[Bored chemist]

In my theory Archean and Proterozoic Eons should merge together characterized by increasing sea levels and global temperatures.

Are you trying to get yourself banned?

[Yaniv (OP)]

In my theory the Phanerozoic Eon is characterized by declining sea levels and global temperatures.

[Origin]

As the earth expands further its atmosphere will get thinner, global temperatures will drop, primary productivity and biodiversity reduced, at some point the oceans will freeze entombing the remains of life. At this stage the earth will look like Mars and I will head to Venus.

So in your lifetime the oceans will freeze and in some way I don't understand that will make the earth look like Mars.  Additionally, we will have interplanetary space travel and people will travel to Venus for some reason.
This scenario clearly a fantasy and has no legitimate place on a science site.

[Yaniv (OP)]

So in your lifetime

No. I am glad not to live that long.

people will travel to Venus for some reason.

By the time the earth will freeze Venus could be ready for colonization. I can't find any other warm place to go.

[The Spoon]

So in your lifetime

No. I am glad not to live that long.

people will travel to Venus for some reason.

By the time the earth will freeze Venus could be ready for colonization. I can't find any other warm place to go.

Please just stop with this idiocy.

[Origin]

No. I am glad not to live that long.

You said you would travel to Venus, I guess that was just a misstatement.

[Kryptid]

@Yaniv , I'm still waiting for you to address what I've said:

No. Science has not published the results of the experiment.

Even if it did, the results couldn't contradict conservation of mass because conservation of mass has been proven.

Is she God ?

A person doesn't have to be God in order to discover a mathematical proof. Remember the Pythagorean theorem? A² + B² = C² in Euclidean space. That is also a proof. Pythagoras wasn't God.

Do you know what Noether's theorem is?

The results of the experiment have not been published to rush to conclusions.

It's not "rushing to conclusions" when you already have proof. Even if weight did drop with a temperature increase, that is something that would have to be simultaneously consistent with conservation of mass.

By trying to change the subject, you are avoiding dialogue and just promoting your model instead. If you don't stop violating rule #5, I'm closing this thread. This is your last warning.

[Yaniv (OP)]

My theory predicts PE2 particles (anti-protons) should be unstable in a positively charged universe.

[Kryptid]

My theory predicts PE2 particles (anti-protons) should be unstable in a positively charged universe.

Well then your model has been falsified, as antiprotons are very much real.

Since you have ignored my last post yet again, and you were warned about it, this thread is getting closed. Don't open a new thread about your model or it too will be closed and you will be suspended for trying to bypass a thread locking.