Strange

Yes they have. http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/arcade/cmb_spectrum.html Or we might be moving relative to the CMB. (And you mean "isotropic" not "homogeneous".) We do. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ http://planck.cf.ac.uk/science/cmb

Is there any evidence that that happens (other than by chance)?

Except we don't know if the universe is infinite or not. And we don't know what the other thing is. So maybe nothing is infinite.

Most of those problems are political or social. Science can help understand the causes and perhaps, suggest solutions, but they are not caused by and can't be stopped by science. On the other hand, science has made enormous progress in treating and preventing cancer. And, there is little evidence that it has increased the incidence. Most is down to lifestyle choices: smoking, drinking, bad diet, etc. I suppose coal-fired power stations are fairly a significant contributor. But it is science that will find alternatives (nuclear, fusion, solar, wind, etc.)

Good point. (Maybe it would have been better to say "We should be able to see the effects...")

Not really. There is no vagueness in QM; it is a mathematical theory which is able to make extremely precise predictions. All of which have been confirmed by experiment. It is you that is being vague with references to "evolving fields" and photons as "electrical entities" or "lightning". Perhaps you should learn a little more about the theory before attempting to replace it.

We know antimatter exists: we can detect it, and it is used in a variety of technologies. If there were an anti-matter universe, or even galaxy, then we would see the effects of matter and antimatter annihilating.

What on Earth makes you think they don't? https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=black+hole+merger http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+merger+AND+black+hole/0/1/0/all/0/1 Do you really think that is a sensible question? Really? That is as stupid as Creationist arguments against evolution. There is clearly no point discussing science with someone who can ask a question like that. Yes you did. You just chose to ignore it. https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=galaxy+merger http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+galaxy+merger/0/1/0/all/0/1

Pretty much all of it. 1. The exchange is of virtual photons, not photons (arguably, these are just a mathematical tool) 2. Photons are not "electrical entities" 3. Photons are nothing like lightning (which is a flow of charged particles) I get the impression that you have picked up your knowledge from skimming popular science articles and books. This inevitably means you think you know more than you do. If you are interested in learning the basics, you could start here: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/ That is essential if you want to do physics.

You say this but then Which is about as far from reality as it is possible to get. Maybe you should consider the far more likely possibility: your imagination has let you down.

Or, to put it another way, no.

If there is nothing, then what is moving at the speed of light. Or, to put it another way, please stop posting made-up nonsense.

I guess he is thinking of these: They are very, very, very, very, very distantly related.

By chance, I came across this: Composite image shows two black holes orbiting each other - phys.org

Your repeated expressions of disbelief based on your profound (and, I suspect, wilful) ignorance is becoming very tedious. Why don't you go and study these things before making such asinine posts and making a fool of yourself. A large amount of work has been done on black hole mergers. It is a fascinating subject. There are even simulations of how they would behave, particularly interesting in the last few moments and the following oscillations ("ring down"). There are also several projects ongoing to detect the direct evidence of such mergers. I am not going to waste my time searching for relevant articles and papers because all you will do is read the tile, misunderstand it and then ask more questions trying to push your personal agenda, which is purely based on your ignorance of the subject. In the unlikely event you want to learn something about this, there are some keywords in the above you can use.

I am not going to watch a video (I rarely do) but he looks like just another lying creationist. His objection seems to be that some plants and animals have not changed very much over millions of years. So what? There is no reason they should have. If they are a good fit for their environment, and the environment hasn't changed much, why would they change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handshake

Is there such a thing?

And the Kerr metric wasn't worked out for 50 years (that might just be because no one looked at it, or it might be an indication of how difficult it is).

You seem to be confusing "what we know about" with "what already exists". You don't come across that way. Not really. Logic is a formal discipline. You can't have your own logic any more than you can have your own arithmetic. (Although I wouldn't be surprised to see an incoherent rant from you about how 2 + 2 = 5.)

No, I don't see the problem. Firstly, some of those scientists are keen to find evidence of paranormal phenomena (that is why they do the research). Secondly, being good scientists they use robust experimental techniques and so what they "want" is irrelevant. So we are back to: if there is no evidence, I am not going to waste my time on it. You can't provide any evidence. I have looked for evidence. Until some turns up, I will assume there is no such thing. But would you like to buy an invisible pink unicorn as a pet?

Good guess. But wrong. Nope. So that's 2 down. Thanks for playing. Scientists who have looked into it. I don't. But because I used to be very interested in the subject, I have read about a lot of scientific research. Every now and again another potentially interesting result comes up and proves to be something completely mundane. But feel free to post some peer-reviewed research that demonstrates the existence of paranormal abilities. If you are just going to insist that it exists but is secret, then I will say the same is true for invisible pink unicorns. Those are not FACTS, they are unsupported assertions. Please provide some references to peer-reviewed published research that supports your claims.

It may be worth pointing out (given the OP's fragile grasp of reality science) that the name "God particle" was invented by the marketing department of a publishing company in order to sell more books. It has no meaning beyond that.

And there are, of course, a very large number of scientists who are religious. There is no inherent conflict. It is only people with an anti-science or anti-religion agenda who create the dichotomy.

No. I don't think anyone is trying to do that. Most scientists and philosophers of science will tell you that is impossible. (And unnecessary.) I would like to live for, say, another few hundred years. Just to see how some of the current problems get solved (not just in science). But I don't think I want to use "Robotic Transhumanism" to do that. (I don't know what it is, but it doesn't sound very nice). That makes you religious by any normal definition of the word.