swansont

Meanwhile, unicorns are not widespread and yeti are "shy" People have pointed out flaws in your experiments and you still find the evidence concrete. You aren't credible. Then the burden of proof is upon you to provide scientific evidence of these things. Blamethrowing (they won't entertain the possibilities) is not a valid excuse or substitute. IOW, I am not obliged to entertain the possibilities in a vacuum

! Moderator Note Since the topic here is evolution and not religion, per se, this has been moved here.

! Moderator Note You forgot to look at the rules for the entire site. They prohibit soapboxing/preaching, and persistent use of logical fallacies.

Learning why that article does not constitute evidence would be a crucial step in understanding science.

So you go to the top level of the sub-forum and click "Start a new topic" You can copy-paste a quote if you need to. That's what you do when you think "I want to know more" when you're in someone else's thread and not addressing them.

What about the application *requires* an electromagnet?

Talking of mutations seems premature considering the "no credible evidence, ever" and "violates the laws of physics" bits. Kinda like arguing what color you should paint your perpetual motion machine. Besides which, it's OT

Battery power is likely to be a problem. If it's just on/off that you require, you may be better off with a very strong permanent magnet that can be placed within a shield of some sort. When the magnet is in one orientation, you get the strong field. To turn it off, you rotate it or the shield (e.g. soft iron) and the field will preferentially exist within the shielding material. External field is basically nil. examples: https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cfm?partnumber=MB175 http://www.leevalley.com/US/Wood/page.aspx?cat=3,43576&p=65258

No. What you read was wrong, or possibly you misunderstood it. There are no phenomena that violate the laws of physics. There are occasionally phenomena where it's not clear (for one reason or another) how they fit within the laws of physics. But invariably, when more evidence comes to light, we do achieve that understanding.

To amplify this a bit: from a more pragmatic point, nothing will ever contradict the laws of physics. If such a situation were to potentially arise, we would modify the law in question (possibly just by placing a limitation of applicability on the existing law). Which is part of the reason mainstream scientists would not suggest such a thing. They know better. Some headline writers and crackpots, however, don't.

Not exactly sure what your use of concourse is supposed to man, but the answer would be no. The moon is not always visible at night; at the new moon it's completely on the same side of the earth as the sun. The amount of light reflected off of the moon at night depends on its phase. It is certainly not constant. And there are also eclipses. Consider your "irrefutable fact" refuted. They all behave similar to the moon with regard to reflecting light. The amount would depend on the albedo and distance to the sun.

No, I didn't; I'm not convinced it's not a waste of time (and the rules say you need top present the pertinent details here anyway) What's the difference between offering up a mythical physical phenomenon and a mythical mental phenomenon? Can't you just own up to the fact that your suggestion of Brownian motion (or something like it) is without basis? Residual air currents are not something like Brownian motion.

Are you just not willing to read the link?

No, they are not exceptions. The earth collides with many things every day. The moon carries with it the evidence of many collisions. These are not exactly rare events So you won't explain what correlation you think exists and why you think it's meaningful? The correlation I can think of is that they are both indirect measurements. So what? No, you're making stuff up and making claims without supporting reason or facts.

Do you have examples of this phenomenon? What causes it?

Yes, I suppose there is. So what? Why? This sounds much more like argument from personal incredulity than science.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7: We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it This is why your link has been removed and the thread has been locked. If you want to actually discuss the subject, here, then you may do so.

! Moderator Note 1. Quoting from a source, including wikipedia, should include a link to the source. Otherwise this is a plagiarism and copyright issue. 2. This is nonsense. Phrases like "I believe that gases like oxygen are alive" might suggest the speculations section, but "I cannot prove it" means you haven't come close to the minimum level of rigor we want. So I will just lock this and remind you this is a science forum, not the "weird conjecture" forum.

I think this is mentioned in the link — he refused to attempt the demonstration with the chips nearby, because he knew it would reveal him to be the fraud he later admitted he was.

And then he blew under one part, and it did move. Thus, air currents are not ruled out. Walking just shows that weak ambient currents are ruled out, not stronger, directed ones. We don't know if there was a bigger gap elsewhere. We don't see his face during the time the foil is moving.

What you have to consider is that you have to assuage outside skepticism (to some reasonable level), not your own. The easiest person to fool is yourself. If the people you are trying to convince think that mere monitoring is insufficient, then it's insufficient. Two things: It's obviously settling in at the beginning, from residual air movement inside the bowl and/or gravity acting on asymmetries. He didn't wait very long before his attempt. Doesn't rule out further settling. When he blows, it moves. Therefore, air currents from outside are not ruled out.

SR is easily understood by many in terms of the invariance of the speed of light. To say "correctly understood" will require a model, which has yet to be presented, and evidence, of which you have posted none. In what way is the above, or the advance of Mercury's perihelion, an example of a part of GR that's accepted just because Einstein said so? GR actually gives the number, to a reasonable precision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury It's accepted because it gives the right answer. Preferably a journal or archive, but in any event something that could be linked to or referenced. If these sources exist, why won't you share them? Then there is no reason not to share the prediction. Why haven't you done so? But time dilation for GPS is easy. So there's no reason not to share it. I'm running out of patience. If you aren't going to present a model with predictions, you aren't following the rules. You need to make this a priority if you wish to continue the discussion. This is getting ahead of matters. There's no point to discussing this until you've convinced people that relativity needs modification.

As StringJunky points out, this is a mischaracterization of the problem. What was going on during the ~billion years before life emerged? One thing is: it was cooling down. That took some time — you won't get life as we know it emerging on a planet where liquid water can't form. That took a few hundred million years.

Yes. It's a limitation of GR — it doesn't work on very small scales. Works great in other situations. Just like other theories, it has its limits of applicability. You're still dodging the question about the parts of GR that are accepted just because Einstein said so. So, as ajb noted, this implies these are not theories out there in published form. And yet you still have not presented any kind of equations, calculations or numerical results that we could compare with existing systems. We have to just take your word that new results will show your idea to be right. Why won't you present the predictions for the Galileo satellites, and do the same for the GPS system? Then stop stalling and do it. Do it for GPS as well, whose orbits are pretty well known. Enough with the assurances that something big is going to happen. What are your predictions?

! Moderator Note This is a science site. We expect you to be able to back up your claims. So here is your homework: you must substantiate this with references. When was the big bang theory proposed, when was it accepted, and when were various lines of evidence used in support discovered. If you are right, all of the evidence will post-date the theory's acceptance. If science has proceeded normally, though, some will precede and some will follow. This needs to be in your very next post in this thread. You don't get to ignore it.