Daecon

And why, exactly, is that "unfortunate"?

Another thing that occured to me would be if gravity went between attractive and repulsive depending on distance, would that imply a specific distance where gravity is neutral or zero? I imagine such an exact distance wouldn't be very easily maintained though, so it might not matter.

Governs what, exactly? Werewolves? And what do you mean by "always at the intersection"? You do know it's possible to sometimes see the moon even during the daytime, right?

Or worse, a 3-word document saying much the same thing. "God did it."

And why do you think that your logic is right? What evidence has lead you to that conclusion?

Why Judeo-Christian scripture specifically and not any of the scriptures from any of the hundreds of other religions?

So why do you think other people have the time to conduct your experiments for you instead? You're making the claim, you're the one who has to back it up.

"The hidden truth of scripture"? What are you talking about? (Also, which scripture? There's a different one for each religion.)

Have you tested it yourself?

And what things have been proven that are "contrary" to truth?

The Milky Way galaxy?

"The problem with modern science" huh?

I think ajb was making a joke. I use hair gel every few days, but I also use "volume boost" style varieties of shampoo and conditioner. However the day after using gel (day 2,) I just rinse my hair in the shower without shampooing it, so the gel doesn't wash out, and on day 3 go back to shampoo/conditioner and hair gel.

It reminds me of that "You have 11 fingers" joke. Count up from 1 on the fingers of one hand, you end at 5. Count down from 10 on the fingers of your other hand, you end at 6. 5+6=11, ergo you have 11 fingers. (Ignoring people with natural polydactylism, of course.)

Why do all of your graphs have that weird swirly effect?

Hmm, I'd not really thought about things such as the Pauli exclusion principle. Wouldn't that require gravity to be stronger at nuclear distances though, for example would having repulsive gravity being the force that's keeping these speculative protons and neutrons apart imply that real-life gravity is keeping protons and neutrons together in the real world? We know that it's not gravity that's responsible for nuclear cohesion in the real world, so I think we should assume it's not repulsive gravity keeping the Pauli exclusion principle in play in this scenario. Trying to keep suspension of disbelief as small as possible, and all that. I don't expect there's much gravitational attraction between individual protons and neutrons, so I'm not imagining a difference in strength, just a difference in attraction/repulsion. (I'm not sure what the term would be, "polarity" doesn't seem appropriate.) As for neutrons stars and such, if we imagine that gravity was repulsive up to the distances of the atomic or molecular scale and not just subatomic/Planck, and so the mass and density of degenerate matter would be high enough for gravity to be noticeable, that could work. I suppose one of the bigger problems with this speculation would be deciding where to have gravity change from being repulsive to being regular old attractive gravity.

Well I was reading about how some people have speculated that gravity may be repulsive at significant intergalactic distances, and my mind went off on a tangent regarding the inflationary epoch just after the big bang. I thought I'd start off with some speculation about the implications of small scale repulsive gravity before applying that train of thought to things like Inflation and such.

What might the Universe be like in a fictional reality where gravity was repulsive instead of attractive at subatomic distances? I'd assume it wouldn't make much difference to the average atom or molecule as the masses involved would be too small for gravity to have an effect either attractive or repulsive? However, I did wonder what the behaviour of black holes might be like in this hypothetical scenario. Attractive at regular, human-experience distances and repulsive at the subatomic and Planck scales. Would the mass reach a stable equilibrium between the attractive and repulsive, would the black hole explode once the singularity reached a critical threshold, would the hole appear to perpetually inflate and deflate as each "side" asserts dominance, and so on... Would if even be possible to calculate the behaviour given the hypothetical nature of the speculation?

In a way, this is quite encouraging. It means there's still more to learn, and a way forward to learn it.

There was also an implication of wanting to encourage him to eat something that's somewhat healthy, which a few posts have tried to address, and got criticized for their trouble.

So some of the energy from the original photons will be lost as the kinetic energy of the particles, before being converted back into photons again?

I detest monkeys and apes, but I still think it's sad that the gorilla had to be killed because of a child's actions.

Nobody is trying to tell you how to parent, they're offering you advice on how to prepare healthier and more appealing food varieties. You also said he was an "awful eater", nothing about phobias. Saying someone is an awful eater usually implies that they eat unhealthy stuff, not that have a specific phobia, so don't overreact to a simple misunderstanding. Without knowing the exact range and nature of his phobia, it's going to be very difficult to offer any useful advice.

My pet tiger and my pet tabby are the same breed?

What's made up?