Strange

That is less dense, rather than more. And no, it is impossible. You can very slightly reduce the density (increase the volume) of water by freezing it. And of course, ice doesn't flow so that could cover land surfaces.

Is it possible to interpret these error bounds as probabilities; for example, that it is roughly twice as likely that they do fall down than they fall up?

Islamic terrorists and refugees are not the same thing. Do you know of any examples of refugees waging ware against local people?

Tidal forces do.

Or, more likely, because they are completely different things.

Not yet. But it is getting close: http://alpha.web.cern.ch/node/248

No it isn't. It is a very sensible thing to do. That is how advances are made. That is how Nobel Prizes are won. That is how we get new theories. Don't play the martyr. Your ideas are not being rejected because you are a heretic but simply because you cannot provide any support for them (beacuse there isn't any) and because they are contradicted by the evidence. And they are accepted because of overwhelming evidence, not because they are "nice". Why does it seem like that? There is no evidence to make it seem a viable alternative. The evidence demonstrates that it cannot be a viable alternative. It doesn't "fit" with GR (at least, you have failed to show that it does). And you reject GR. And how can it explain dark energy when, in your model, the universe is not expanding therefore there is no such thing as dark energy. It is nothing to do with liking or disliking. It is about evidence. Why are you unable to understand that? It is nothing to with belief. It is about evidence. Why are you unable to understand that? How does it explain dark energy? Why do you need dark energy if the universe is not expanding? And how can rejecting the results of GR be called "not change much of anything"?

The problem isn't going against accepted principles. After all, that is how progress is made. The big bang had to struggle against accepted principles. What is foolish is doing it for no reason at all. The scale factor simply describes how much distances increase in a given time. This results in Hubble's law (because simple arithmetic).

The strain is the measured amplitude of the gravitational waves. The amplitude is related to the energy being radiated, which is related to the distance, masses, orbital speeds, and angular momentum of the pair.

I see they are putting some of their simulated galaxies on Galaxy Zoo to be identified. What a great idea! (p.s. your first link seems to be broken.)

Have you seen the really amazing simulations of this? (As well as being impressive, they rather disprove your claim that this factor is ignored. Oh, and they also offer further support for the Lambda-CDM model.) How does that work? (I assume there is no point asking you to show any support for this?)

Science is not about "truth"; that is for philosophers and religions. (And "tenet", not tenant.) And you choose to ignore the evidence because it disagrees with your beliefs. In science, it should start with evidence. Otherwise your idea is as useful as the moon being made of cheese. And that is the key step you are ignoring. By using your imagination, instead of science, you are making things up. I assume this is using "logic" to mean "it makes sense to me". There is no evidence that singularities exist. No, it doesn't. You really ought to learn a little bit about the theory you are criticising. It started from everywhere. Everywhere is the centre. You really ought to learn just the tiniest little bit about the theory you are criticising. As ajb noted, another key bit of evidence for the big bang model is the evolution of the large scale structure of the universe. So, again, you are wrong. I think the solution is for you to learn what the big bang model actually says instead of inventing stuff (strawman fallacy). Then you should stop making statements that make it obvious you don't understand the theory you are criticising. Think of the time you have wasted when you could have been learning about the theory you are criticising.

Where is that from?

Where is Wikipedia wrong? And I wouldn't tell them (whoever "they" are) I would correct it.

You said: Why on Earth would anyone be afraid of your ignorant nonsense?

This is grossly dishonest cherry picking. The page also says: "The radius of the sun's orbit is about 2.5x1017 km, so the total mass of dark matter within that orbit is 6x1040 kg. This is the mass of 3x1010 (30 billion) stars like the sun! The entire galaxy only contains ~100 billion stars" So the mass of dark matter is about one third of the mass of stars. There is also a large amount of other matter.

Like all countries, it does need them. As tourists, academics, entrepreneurs, engineers, doctors, investors, and workers. Among other things. So, again, how do you decide who to keep out?

It is several times less than the mass of the normal matter in a galaxy. Remind me why we should take your opinions seriously? Are you ever going to show that this is as "important" as you claim?

How do you decide who to stop? Or do you want to completely close the country to outsiders?

That is even harder to control. Many of the terrorists (now and in the past) are residents or citizens of the country already. What would you do about that?

Please show your calculations that there is a "a considerable amount of DM" around a black hole. Stop shifting the burden of proof. YOU claimed it is important. It is up to YOU to show that is the case. But, if it will shut you up and help you focus on your responsibilities, read this: http://cdms.berkeley.edu/Education/DMpages/FAQ/question36.html

Because you have got your science education from pop-sci sources. This is a Bad Way to learn science. They lie to you. Deliberately. You will be told a lot of things that are not true (but are easy to understand). Basing an argument against a scientific theory on pop-sci sources and yootoob videos is like insisting people remove the frobulator from their cars. You will just embarrass yourself. Which is why it is of limited use in this case. Normally in science one starts with evidence, rather than something you have made up because it sounds nice. Sounds like you need a basic introduction to logic as well. This is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. You are going about this all wrong. You don't need to know or care about the Lambda-CDM model. Even if you proved it wrong, it wouldn't be evidence for your idea. You just need to come up with an alternative explanation for the CMB. (one that doesn't rely on the existing model; therefore you don't need to understand the existing model). That doesn't matter: according to you, there is no expansion and therefore no cooling. Therefore no CMB. You need an alternative explanation. Without it, your hypothesis is dead. And that is because rational people put their personal beliefs to one side and consider the evidence. Why are you unable and/or unwilling to do that? And failed. Because the only thing you have is your emotional attachment. You have no evidence and no theory to support your "religion". Except you haven't. You have no evidence and no theory. You have nothing but faith. 1. It doesn't. Hubble's law results from a constant scale factor. That is just simple arithmetic, nothing to do with cosmology or advanced mathematics. 2. Why not learn something so that you know the answer to such basic, trivial, simple questions.

Much of the danger that arrives is information (or disinformation). How do you stop that? Spy on every citizen? Censor all messages, websites and forums? Cut the country off from the Internet?

That is because the flaw only exists in your imagination. I am baffled by this behaviour. I cannot understand what motivates you to try and find non-existent flaws in a theory you don't understand (You insist you do, and then make comments that make it very obvious that your knowledge is close to zero.) I know very little about how internal combustion engines work. The idea of powering a vehicle by a series of small carefully timed explosions seems preposterous. But I don't go on automotive forums claiming that that the problem with the design is that they include a frobulator which shouldn't be there, and instead they should use a wozznikizer. (If I did, I would expect to be told that I had no idea what I was talking about.) Then why don't you devote your energies to actually learning some of the basic science behind all this? It also requires knowledge.

1. Please show some support for the claim that "it was a lot of DM there" 2. Please show that it is important to include this in the calculations. 3. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof (and stop being so evasive).