Strange

Then you should have no problem providing a reference.

Maybe by "men" he means mankind.

Who said that they are sure of that?

Also, energy conservation has nothing specifically to do with quantum physics. And, we now know that it is conservation of mass-energy. So energy can be "destroyed" by turning it into matter. Plus, there is no such simple conservation law in GR. So apart from being irrelevant, it is largely wrong.

Interesting. I have never heard it related to the dilation before. Can you provide a reference to an explanation of that?

And changing the path. Perhaps you have heard of "gravitational lensing".

This is only true for some atoms. For others it requires an input of energy to split them. (And the amount of energy released by a single atom is barely detectable.) No one thinks the idea of infinite density at the singularity represents a physical reality. It is assumed that a theory of quantum gravity will avoid this. Gravity does affect light. Even Newton knew this. What evidence or mathematics do you have that supports your belief? It turns out that not all energy travels through a medium. Light for example. This is shown to be unnecessary (and even contradicted) by theory; e.g. Maxwell's equations. Furthermore all attempts to detect such a medium have failed. I think there is more danger of it confusing them if they take it seriously.

By that definition, almost all living things on Earth are not alive. So it doesn't seem to be a very useful definition. That is evolution in the "normal" sense of change; it is not evolution in the sense of populations adapting to their environment.

It is not clear (to me) what your point is.

There is a handy interactive editor which can help you test/learn latex: http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php

So what do you see as "the problem"?

I'm not sure what problem you are referring to. Anyone can contribute to science in various ways. You can study and become a working scientist. You can become a writer/journalist and report on what scientists do. You can join one of the many (probably hundreds, if not thousands, by now) "citizen science" projects. You could even become a politician and affect where the funding goes!

I don't see why. Well, I do. The dictator would quite happily promote false results if it made him look good or fitted with a political agenda. (Look at Lysenkoism, for example.) Some things are impossible. Just because it can be imagined doesn't change reality.

Indeed. There is a linguistics blog I follow that has frequent posts about bizarre machine translations (frequently from Chinese). They usually manage to figure out where the translation came from (Google, Baidu, etc) and even why it gets it so worng.

There is no "inserting". You are confusing the definition of a function with you calculating individual values. The former does not involve time. The latter obviously does (but is irrelevant).

There are many sorting algorithms. One of the best general purpose ones is quicksort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicksort You should be able to find a library with an implementation for whatever programming language you are using.

I was just referring to what Loler claims it means. If it is generally accepted to mean a star, then I have no argument with that.

As part of the definition of a planet is that they "clear the neighbourhood" then planets would have a better chance of matching this description. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood Definitely not black holes though.

Nitrogen is not a fuel, it is just a way of storing the energy. And not a very efficient one apparently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_nitrogen_vehicle

And "A Book From The Sky" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Book_from_the_Sky You will need a bit more than a few incomprehensible pictures to make your case. And why not publish it in a journal that specialises in this sort of thing? Where it can get expert review. Which, I assume, is what you want.

I tend to the view it is just an artwork pretending to be meaningful. Some recent work seems to confirm this: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2106915-mystery-texts-language-like-patterns-may-be-an-elaborate-hoax/

This might be of interest: "DNA hints at earlier human exodus from Africa" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37408014

So you agree you are wrong one on count. Good. Black holes are not invisible. They cause extreme gravitational lensing and so would be highly visible. They also power quasars and jets which are among the brightest things in the universe. And I have no idea what you mean by "sweep" but there is no reason to think they black holes do it any more than any other objects. No, I am saying you are wrong. You are twisting facts to try and make them fit a vague description that could match almost anything.

No. You have had a thread on your misunderstanding of mathematics already. The equation describes how one set of values maps on to another. There is nothing sequential about it.

No. Pulsars are rapidly spinning neutron stars that emit regular pulses of radiation. They do not "pierce space" (whatever that means) any more than any other star.