Strange

So crude that it doesn't work.

Not really. Just more confirmation of your agenda. CharonY said what I would have said, pretty much word for word.

Why am I not surprised to find you quoting Behe ...

Virtual particles can be any type of particle: photon, electron, muon, quark .... Lower mass (energy) particles will exist for longer. They can't produce a photon because that would violate conservation.

Google! http://www.pennmedicine.org/encyclopedia/em_DisplayAnimation.aspx?gcid=000110&ptid=17 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_ears https://birthpsychology.com/free-article/fetal-senses-classical-view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_development https://birthpsychology.com/free-article/fetal-senses-classical-view Bones: tricky because there are different sorts of bones that develop in different ways: http://discovery.lifemapsc.com/in-vivo-development/bone But: http://www.livestrong.com/article/36711-bone-development-during-fetal-development/ http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-hair-skin-nails/ Can you multiply by 7? Note that these are gradual and variable processes, so probably can't be pinned down to a single day.

Why do "time doesn't exist" threads appear as regularly as clockwork?

I can't imagine a situation where the time dilation would be significant compared to how incredibly slowly nerves convey signals.

I have no idea. Perhaps because what you think is an exciting new idea is just what everybody thinks. One way to find out: answer the question I have asked several times... Do you think that the standard scientific view is that life is more than just chemistry? Or perhaps because you are unable to communicate your idea clearly. If we ignore all the terms you abuse (random, frame of reference, etc) then the dialog comes down to: "Life is just chemistry!" "Yes, we know." "No, you don't get it! Life: it's JUST chemistry!!" "Yes, we all know that." "But. But. Life. Is. Chemistry!!!" "Yes. Everybody knows that" etc. across hundreds of posts across several forums. Why are you still arguing?

It isn't really clear what you are asking. For example, you pose the question as if you could be stationary outside the event horizon and just reach out towards it. This is physically impossible and so the answer is undefined. In reality, you would be in free fall and, apart from tidal forces, there would be no effect on nerve impulses or any other aspect of your biology. (As far as I know.)

That is for a virtual pair, which never really exist in the first place. They need to be a particle-antiparticle pair because of other conserved properties (charge, spin, lepton number, etc.)

It is important to realise that the image in the article is just a visual representation of the data - it is not a literal picture of what was seen. I assume the "spectrum" is just artificial colouring to make the diagram more interesting (it may represent something but it isn't clear what from the article - from the link to the paper, it may be the amplitude of the waveform at that point). And the image below seems to be just a different representation of the same data. EDIT: skimming through the paper, I think the red-to-blue direction is moving away from the nanowire where the standing wave of light is. The colours appear to represent the numbers of electrons (which have increased in energy) detected at each position. My (very limited) understanding is that it is just the fact that the image can be generated using electrons, which represents quantization. I may be wrong, so I hope someone more knowledgeable can comment.

It is a crime to copy copyrighted material. If life used right-handed chemicals you would be asking the same question. <shrug>

Then your equation is trivially wrong. The expansion hasn't been constantly accelerating. It was constant, or possibly slowing, initially and then started accelerating. When you can't even do primary school arithmetic and don't know much about the big bang model, why should anyone take you seriously?

And those equations tell us that dark matter is required, if you actually do the maths.

Please define what you mean by "intelligence"? Are you claiming that, for example, atoms and subatomic particles have "intelligence"? If so, what objective evidence do you have for this? (A random collection of words referencing metaphysics does not count as evidence.)

Are you unwilling or unable to explain what this means? Let's make it very simple: what does the symbol "*" represent in your "equation"? (for want of a better word). But the universe is not 1cm long. There are good indications it has no boundaries, and therefore no centre. Complete and utter gibberish.

No evidence, then.

So you agree, now. Good.

It was a photograph of an entire galaxy. Of course you can't make out individual stars. However, astronomers are obviously able to see stars between the arms of the galaxy. This must be true as you have provided no evidence to refute it.

You are being more and more deceitful and dishonest with every post. You are now misrepresenting members of the forum as well as the entire body of astronomers. What was actually said was: "No wonder we can't see them individually." Not that we can't see them.

That might be true of books. One example doesn't prove anything. That is like me saying: Swans can fly. Therefore all animals can fly. Look, there is a flying pig.

And, once again, you are wrong. If that were the case, they would have used another word: "invisible". But they didn't. Why do you think that might be? So, I will have to go with the normal English meaning of dim: not bright. Unless, of course, you can provide some evidence (beyond your own beliefs/delusions) that the stars between the arms are not visible? But you can't, can you?

They know they are dim because they can see them. Sheesh. But I am glad to see you admit that you have zero evidence. Thank you for that, anyway. Now all you need to do is stop trying to force the evidence to fit your preconceptions and start forming hypotheses based on the evidence. Hmmm.... Tough one: you or the entire astronomical community? Give me a moment to think about which is most likely...

What is an MOT? I can't see anything here that fits: http://www.acronymfinder.com/MOT.html

What does your notation "0x1=1" mean? Is the "x" supposed to represent multiplication? (In which case it is trivially wrong.) Or does it mean something else, in which case you need to define it.