Strange

Of course. Anything you see on YouTube must be true:

Apparently, they are just conjecture. <shrug>

1. If other people are not allowed to use science to demonstrate that your idea is wrong, then you are not allowed to use it to support your ideas. 2. Those papers are not about a collision with the moon. Obviously.

Then the chances are that you are mistaken. This just requires a couple of friends. You sit in one room with a friend (A). Another friend (B) sits in another room with the wheel. You run a series of tests. Friend A records the time and whether you are in the room or not, and whether you claim to be moving the wheel. Friend B records the times when the wheel moves. Obviously, there must be no communication between A and B during the tests. Then you compare the records and find out what proportion of the time your claims to move the wheel correspond to times when the wheel moves. Good plan. And sit several feet away from the table. And make sure there is no bright sunlight.

Any comments on how you did your testing? Does it approach the necessary rigour?

The money was placed in trust, so he wouldn't have access to it. (Not that it will ever be paid out, of course.)

I assume you have large solid sheet of glass or perspex between you and this wheel? And it is isolated from any drafts or vibrations? And you are not able to touch the table it is on? And you have checked that it doesn't move when you are not trying to move it? And this has been witnessed by other people? And the tests have been done double-blind? If the answer to any of those is "no" then you do not have special powers. If the answer to all of them is "yes" then you need to do more careful tests. If those further tests are also positive, then you could apply to win the $1,000,000 prize from the Randi Foundation. (Is that still going?)

Industrial safety standards use all sorts of techniques, such as: Hazard analysis and risk assessment (H&R / HARA) Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) Fault tree analysis (FTA) Dependent failure analysis (DFA) Design review by failure modes (DRBFM)

Oh. I thought it was some cryptic reference to the way we make heroes of sports stars...

OK. That is clearer. I thought you were comparing modern versions of Buddhism/Islam/Christianity with older versions of the same religion, rather than with other religions.

The "Golden Ratio" is (approximately) 1.618 not 3.14. Also, the idea that it is related to beauty in art and architecture may be a bit of a myth. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that this is the case. And the golden ratio is Phi, not Pi. And I am quite sure there is no evidence relating it to sexiness. I think it makes you look a bit manic.

Can you share this evidence?

As you have no replacement for the physics of impacts or dating processes, we will have to stick with the science we currently know. Which pretty much rules out your wild guesses as impossible (as you tacitly admit by trying to exclude scientific data).

Although much of the paper goes way over my head, I can't see anything that suggests that this is that different from previous descriptions of black holes. I am looking forward to the "Dummies Guide" explanation of this work ... There is an interview with one of the authors, Andrew Strominger, here which explains some of this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/dark-star-diaries/stephen-hawking-s-new-black-hole-paper-translated-an-interview-with-co-author-andrew-strominger/ There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this is "not a black hole at all", just a possible step towards resolving the information problem. And some comments by Sabine Hossenfelder (who, I assume, knows what she is talking about): http://backreaction.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/more-information-emerges-about-new.html

Then why do you think anyone should take it seriously?

But no shorter. No doubt it is a mult-variable trade-off between how mature the offspring are, how much care they need, how quickly they can grow, how being pregnant affects the health and vulnerability of the parent, and many other factors. The fact it doesn't happen seems like proof enough.

No they aren't. As shown by Bell's theorem.

The UN's Millennium Development Goals went a long way to reducing some of these problems. The number of people living in extreme poverty was reduced by about 130 million, infant mortality was reduced etc. The replacement Sustainable Development Goals aim to eliminate extreme poverty by 2030, reduce child mortality to the same levels as in advanced countries, and so on. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview.html Even if it doesn't achieve all of these things, the fact that the agreements and goals exist should prompt improvements.

Read what it says again: "From the outside, the region of a black hole looks like the surface of a sphere" The black hole has a well defined radius (proportional to its mass) and therefore has a well defined surface area as seen from the outside. That surface area is finite and proportional to the square of the radius (and therefore proportional to the square of the mass). I am not sure what they mean by "the axis direction". ... Just seen you later post, which explains it. Kinda. You do not travel along the axis to the singularity, so the fact it is infinite is irrelevant. But remember that is an analogy and, therefore, in some sense wrong. I suspect the only way to really understand this is via the math. (One interesting point that I have seen is that if you make any attempt to move away from the singularity - e.g. use your rocket engines - then you will just get there sooner.) Any attempt to understand this applying common-sense notions is bound to failure.

Just to expand on this, gravitational lensing is caused by a local concentration of mass in the same way that optical lensing can be caused by a local thickening of glass. You can't have a lens that surrounds you and provides the same magnified image no matter where you look.

In which case, it would be a good idea for you to spend a little time finding out what they are, rather than guessing.

I don't know what you base that on. He is presenting exactly the same lies and twisted facts as all Creationists.

1. Is that how you calculate the volume of the earth, for example? Multiply its size by the life time? I don't think so. As for why the "least likely"; simply because it is the simplest. Finding solutions to the Einstein field equations is very difficult. So making simplifying assumptions like making it eternal, spherical, non-rotating, etc makes the problem tractable. And is a good approximation for many cases.

You said you had forgotten. I'm not a mind reader, especially when the mind is empty.

If they have not fully explained the technique, then the patent will be invalid.