Strange

So you are just going to ignore the science and the actual data? That is a bit silly. There were something 1,000 people involved. Any of them, and millions of others, could explain it. You can find any number of descriptions on line, from the superficial (like your audio sample) to the details of the experiment and data analysis. But presumably you have chosen to remain ignorant. That is a bit sad. 1. Science never "proves" anything. 2. It can and will be replicated by others. That information is readily available. But if you think that science is only valid if you can do it yourself, then you are deluded. Of course, you could, in principle, get together the billions of dollars and the massive team of scientists and engineers to reproduce LIGO. But you really don't need to. I find it rather ironic that you say this after proposing an experiment which appears to be nearly technically impossible. Which would be a good reason for doing it in outer space. Can we see your analysis of why this is inadequate and what level of vacuum (and, presumably, particle size) needs to be achieved. Can we see your analysis of how fast it would need to rotate and what this means for the required strength and the materials required. (You know, to demonstrate that you not just making stuff up.) There are plenty of other examples of gravitational lensing and one significant difference from diffraction (or refraction) is the absence of dispersion. However, feel free to show your analysis of how the sun's corona could cause the observed effect. (I assume you are not just making wild guesses here, and do know what you are talking about.)

I think that would require "real" (human equivalent) AI. But you can already get what you are looking for: you can find articles at every level of detail from the full mathematical detail, through some math + some concept, through to purely conceptual descriptions. What would an automated system (if it were possible) give you that is not already available?

What are the problems with the big bang model that we do not know how to resolve?

It is very hard to have a discussion with you when you change the subject in response to questions. Please stop doing that. Firstly, the UK has not stopped all Muslim refugees. Neither have they stopped all Russians. So, again: why should they have stopped only Putin and not all Russians after Russian terrorists killed people in the UK? And doesn't that mean they should only stop Assad and not all Muslims? And so wrong on the basic facts.

It certainly isn't science (note the lack of theory and evidence). Being able to visualise something is quite different from demonstrating that the idea actually works. We can visualise all sorts of things. Such as light just losing energy and become red-shifted the longer it travels through space. But you need to test these ideas. Otherwise they are no more than just ideas, and therefore useless. For one thing, if you say the universe is not expanding (and GR says it is) then you need to come up with some explanation as to why the universe is so finely tuned as to stay balanced. Or throw out GR so you don't need to worry about it. Hoyle suggested matter was continuously created. This (fairly obviously) violates conservation. I don't really understand what you are asking. Modelling how the universe evolved from an earlier hot, dense state gives rise to the structures we see around us. In any (quasi) steady state theory, do you just assume that the galaxies have always been there? Or do you have some way of explaining how they came about? And how do you explain the presence of the CMB? And the proportion of hydrogen and helium? Or do you just say, well that's the way it is (and always has been)? How does that work then, exactly? How is it different from Hoyle's quasi-steady-state model?

So I guess you haven't actually looked at the quality of the results obtained. The gravitational waves were not detected by a satellite. (And were not bad resolution.) Neither was the Pound-Rebka experiment. Nor the Hafele-Keating. I am not sure that things are that simple. Relativistic mass is just a way of describing the total energy of the system. And while it is true that the spinning object would have more energy, it is not obvious this would have the effect you claim. I would like to see the calculations of the expected size of the effect. (But I suspect this is non-trivial.) I suspect (although it is many years since I did any vacuum physics) that it would be hard to improve on the vacuum of space. It certainly sounds technically challenging. But then so are experiments like LIGO. And, like all such experiments where you try and measure a tiny effect, there would be all sorts of problems with noise, measurement accuracy, etc. It is not clear why you think this experiment would be any more convincing than any of the others. Is it just because you thought of it? I think it might be easier to just find a large mass to send lasers past and test what happens. You know, like a planet or the Sun. Oh, hang on. They have done that. But you won't accept it.

Why? And by analogy, they shouldn't stop refugees just Assad, is that what you are saying?

What is it then?

If that happened, do you think that the rational response is to ban all Russians entering the USA? Or do you think there might be a more rational approach? BTW, I don't know about the USA but there have been at least two very high profile cases of Russians entering the UK to kill people. One of these used what would normally be described as a terror weapon (radioactive plutonium). Oddly, the UK did not ban all Russians from entering the country. Should they?

Here are the first two result in a search for research in this area: http://prelude.bu.edu/publications/Segre_etal_OLEB_1998.pdf http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v8/n3/abs/nchem.2419.html So it seems that the chemistry you claim is impossible can happen. (A bit like evolution.)

Do you really think that all Islamic people want to attack you? Again, how do you decide who to let in and who to stop?

The particles are just manifestations or perturbations of fields that extend throughout space, so in a sense you are right. 1 to 3 have nothing to do the particles physics. (Although I suppose that might change with a theory of quantum gravity). [And it is misleading to think of the big bang as an explosion.] 4 has a number of explanations as various hypothetical particles which are part of various extensions to the standard model. 5 Neutrinos are very definitely part of the standard model (although there is quite a bit we don't understand about them yet).

They travel in all directions, but any point in space, they will cause distortions in the directions orthogonal to the direction of travel.

It is similar. The difference is that sound waves are changes in compression in the direction of travel (z). While gravitational waves have an effect in x, y and t but not z. Correct: no and yes. 4D. Space-time, remember. And these are different again in that they are transverse waves in just one directional orthogonal to the direction of travel.

Space-time being stretched and squeezed is the closest description. (As always, the devil is in the detail of the directions in which these take place.) Nothing to do with Higgs field/bosons which have nothing to do with gravity (other than being a cause of a small part of the mass of matter). We don't currently have a theory of gravitons and gravity.

On the other hand, people who worked (or would be working now) on a cure for polio or smallpox are not unemployed. They are working on other things. If all cancers were treatable, then there would be money to be had by providing those treatments and for researching better treatments. If cancer were totally eliminated then there would be massive cost savings to society and that money could be invested in research into other important problems.

We have journalists and the writers of popular science books (some of them scientists) to do that. The danger is always that people mistake those for the actual science. (I think there should be a legal requirement for a disclaimer of the form: "This document presents a simplified description of the science based on analogies, approximations, half-truths and occasional lies. It is not a substitute for studying science.")

Is that true? This is not a subject I follow in any detail, but I though I had seen some research on exactly this. Perhaps on one of the threads about abiogenesis this forum. (I don't know if it was in-vitro or in-silico, but that is hardly relevant). So you want to turn an interesting question into a repetition of your previously closed thread. I doubt that will go down well. What might be slightly more interesting is for you to start a thread on how you believe species came about. (I assume some variant on creationism.)

There is generally thought to be some sort of pre-biotic chemical evolution that led to the formation of the first living organisms. In that sense there are similarities. The main reason for drawing the distinction is that (the current) theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life and does not depend on how life originated. The theory is equally valid whether life was created by natural process, god or aliens. That needs to be made clear to those try to argue that the theory must be wrong because we don't know how life started.

It is only a problem because we don't know what it is (hence "dark"). It isn't a problem with the theory (there is no reason to think it doesn't fit in the theory; in fact, the simplest way of explaining it is as a form of energy - hence "dark energy"). It may turn out to be totally incompatible with general relativity, and that would be really exciting. The person who demonstrates that will be lauded. It is nothing to do with the "symbols". You have made it quite clear, repeatedly, that you have some fundamental misunderstandings of the concepts. Hoyle's last ditch attempt to rescue the theory (after Hubble's law was discovered) was to invent the idea that mass was continuously being created, new stars and galaxies were formed and that explained the fact we constantly see things moving away but the universe stays the same. It seems bizarre (to me) to reject both General Relativity and conservation of mass-energy in order to hold up a dead theory. But that is how attached people get to their personal ideas. It only requires small fluctuations in density that will, eventually, be multiplied by gravity.

That sounds about right: the radial direction away from the centre of mass instead of towards it. That is the ALPHA experiment linked to earlier. They are constantly improving this by creating larger amounts of anti-hydrogen to test. Why would it finish? It introduces problems with conservation of energy (working out the details are left as an exercise for the reader - but you will get a clue from Jules Verne's The First Men in the Moon).

Doh. What was I thinking!

I fail to see the relevance of any of this.

OK. That makes sense.

OK. The difference is that my source was talking about the mass of dark matter inside the orbit of the Sun. The Wikipedia page (wouldn't it have been easier to just provide the link?) is talking about the total amount of dark matter. This shows that most of the dark matter is spread throughout and beyond the visible part of the galaxy. Which doesn't seem consistent with your claim that the amount of dark matter around black holes is "important". Please provide some data or calculations to support this claim. (Or withdraw it.)