Strange

Magic, in other words. I'm not sure what that has to do with the rest of your post. If X is an element then it cannot "think". Almost certainly. There may be an "island of stability" for much heavier atoms, but this is only realtive stability. Are you assuming that X is an element? I don't know a huge amount of spectroscopy, but I think it would be possible to create compounds (and mixtures of compounds) that would be unidentifiable without other analysis. Despite programs like CSI, spectroscopy is not magic. It has to compare against a library of known substances (I think; although it can give you clues about the possible structure of a molecule). If you are assuming X is an element, then I suppose those are all true. It depends. Ununoctium might be a transparent gas. But I think it is now expected to be a solid, in which case it will reflect visible light.

You appear to be saying that if we don't have pefect knowledge then we don't know anything. Which is obviously nonsense. The difference is that there is a mountain of evidence for the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection (and all the extra complications). On the other hand, there is zero evidence for evolution being driven by "wants". (Unless you have some?) Which means that "random stuff you make up" is not as right as well-tested science. Sorry. As you have no evidence or rational arguments. I will leave you to it.

Just had a look in one of my books (Nature's Building Blocks, John Emsley). It says: Magnesium deficiency is rare (it occasionally occurs through alcoholism or severe malnutrition) but a normal diet usually provides enough. Foods with high levels of magnesium include: brazil nuts, cashew nuts, soya beans, parsnips, bran, chocolate, and brewer's yeast (all having more than 200mg per 100g). And some beers. [All good then!] The symptoms of magnesium deficiency resemble delerium tremens. Dietary magnesium supplements are not very effective because it is only absorbed slowly through the stomach and gut. Those who need it are given saline-magnesium solution intravenously.

I have a question: why did you bother putting that in a PDF when it is just plain text? I have another question: why is the text formatted so badly as to make it almost illegible? I gave up trying to read it. And another one: predict earthquakes? Really? How far in advance? Can you tell us the exact time and location of the next earthquake of greater than magnitude 7 in Japan?

Enough to know that desire or need has no effect on your descendants genome.

Look up "intrinsic curvature".

Ah, I see. No, mathematically we can treat the surface of the sphere as a 2D object without embedding it in a higher dimensional space. (There is a reason that mathematicans call a three-dimensional sphere a 2-sphere. ) Similarly, the mathematics of 4D space-time is not embedded in a five dimensional space. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IntrinsicCurvature.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature#Higher_dimensions:_Curvature_of_space

Not on evolution.

What will the velocity of the mass be after falling from a height of 1m? Clue: it won't be 1m/s. (In fact, it will be a vlaue that nicely cancels things out.) (And what value of g are you using?)

Yes. In the 2D "surface of a sphere" example, consider that the sphere gets bigger; then the surface gets bigger and lines can be longer. I don't really follow this argument, I'm afraid. In the set of points making up the surface of a sphere, which are the boundary members?

Ah. Common sense. Probably wrong then. How do you suggest that "need" causes evolution? Just "needing" something modifies their genes? Or what?

No. That sounds like Lamarkian evolution ("giraffes have long neck because their parents kept stretching higher"). This has been shown to be (almost) completely wrong. How do you know that there wasn't ban on killing each other in the past? How do you know we were less civilised if there were no words (and therefore no historical records)?

I have to say, I have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution is not caused by "pushing ourselves" and has nothing to do with words vs emotions. How do you know that?

We appear to have perfectly adequate explanations for evolution that, so far, don't depend on your wolly ideas about emotional communication. Evolution/adaptation is both amazing and great. But it don't seem to require anything much more than population variability, inherited characteristics with variation, and differential survival/reproduction. (Yeah, I know. It is a bit more complicated than that.)

Do you have any evidence at all to support these beliefs?

The fact that a line can be infinitely long makes no difference to some aspects of the description of the geometry of space-time. For example, imagine you have a surface and you are doing some good old fashioned (Euclidean) geometry on that plane. It makes no difference to the way you would describe or construct a triangle, whether the plane is infinite or not. Obviously, it does make a difference that you can extend a line forever. But that doesn't change the fundamental characteristics of the geometry. In this case, the fact that the spatial metric will evolve over time - either contracting or expanding (I can't say a huge amount more because I don't fully understand the mathematics of pseduo-Riemannian manifolds. I am just parroting my limited understanding.) So, the answer to this in GR is that the manifold is finite but unbounded. A 2D analog is the surface of a sphere, say. This has finite area, "straight" lines (called geodesics) have a maximum length, etc. But there is not edge or boundary on the surface. 3D space can be described in the same way.

I don't know because no one knows. There is no strong evidence either way. Not as far as I know. But that isn't definitive. Everything I have read suggests that GR, and specifically the FLRW metric, works equally well in either case.

I just thought that the introductory sections were a good non-mathematical description of what the "space is expanding" analogy refers to. (The paper does get more mathematical later; those bits probably don't make sense without a good understanding of the Einstein Field Equations). Then you need to get to grips with the FLRW solution to the Einstein Field Equations. (Although this seems to be what you think is an "aether theory". It isn't.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLRW http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/expanding_universe.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html Space can be finite and unbounded. Consider the 2D surface of a sphere: it is finite but with no edges. The same can be applied to 3 dimensions.

Does that non-sequitur have any connection to the topic of this thread? I can't see it myself.

What is "it"? Space? If so, then yes, I think we can be fairly confident that it will continue to be a factor in life. No one knows. Could be. Or maybe not. Is there any evidence of a creator?

Perhaps the only way to understand it, then, is by learning the math. Although this might be useful: Expanding Space: the Root of All Evil? http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380 I don't know (it doesn't make any difference to the "expanding space" model).

Wrong. Are you here to learn or just repeat incorrect assertions? That is not what the big bang theory describes. And explosion into space would produce observably different results. It isn't expanding into anything; it is itself expanding (or becoming less dense if that is easier to imagine). Maybe "expanding" is the wrong analogy: it is more accurate to say that the distance between things increases; this is just an effect of the geometry of space-time described by the FLRW metric. It has no boundaries.

Perhaps if you really want us to understand what you are trying to say, you should stop using words. Try spending a couple of weeks just emoting in front of your computer. I'm sure we will all be a lot happier.

You might be surprised to know that the computer you are using was not made possible by a bunch of people getting in touch with their emotions to understand "the actual beings of things". In contrast it was developed by people working together who used a rational process of gathering information, who communicated using words and math to produce useful results. If they had just been barking at each other then they wouldn't have made much progress. I therefore have to conclude you are not serious (or are seriously deluded about how people communicate). Can you design a computer by crying? No. Can you send your emotions through the keyboard to my screen? Only by using words. Words are a useful way of gathering and communicating information (as we are doing now). Emotions aren't.

Nonsense. It is because the mind associates words with concepts. (Otherwise words would just be sounds). Really? Why aren't you doing that then? Why are you using these words that you have such a low opinion of? This is very obviously wrong. Would you like to provide some supporting evidence.