Strange

Can you show (quantitatively) that these conditions existed in the early universe described by your theory? How is that different from the big bang model? Why not? This is totally wrong. It seems you do not understand the model you are criticising. "When looking at the data collected by WMAP, scientists noticed that, in one distant region of space — toward the constellation of Eridanus (about ten billion light-years from Earth) — the CMBR showed evidence of a large “hole” in space. They aren’t traditional holes, mind you, but spots where the temperature in the CMBR varies from the usual temperature of 2.7° above absolute zero. " Can you show (quantitatively) that this is consistent with the predictions of your model? But, as that article goes on to say, there is no conflict. Do you think you should withdraw or rewrite your book when it contains such errors? That figure has not changed for many years, as far as I know. Can you provide a source that supports your figure? Or is it another error in your book? "When scientists analyze light moving away from them ... it gives off a reddish color called a redshift" As a description written for anyone (layman or otherwise) that description is so egregiously wrong as to be useless. Worse than useless.

Maybe that is why it is not classified as an explosion. Most explosives are liquids or gases which release large volumes of gas (often nitrogen based).

Nope. Some things really are random. No, I am trying to explain that there is a difference between unpredictable and random. Then scale is irrelevant. You push a car and it moves in a predictable way. You push a molecule and it moves in a predictable way. This is purely deterministic. Randomness has nothing to do with it. Why does it need chance. Newtons laws of motion do not include a probabilistic term. You push, you get acceleration. Completely mechanical, deterministic and predictable. There is no room for randomness in that. Repeated assertions will not change that. Where does randomness or probability come into F = ma? No you aren't. You are making baseless assertions. I think they are unlikely to change my opinion.

The ones I have had dealings with have been idiots with no interest at all in learning. Especially not science, which they seem to think of as some sort of inhuman, soul-destroying practice.

Sorry, I was being brief due to lack of time and because I couldn't think of a good example. But, for example, many people would say "killing someone is wrong"; a clear moral statement. But then if you start testing various cases, it is clear that it is not so clear cut. Is it OK to kill in self defence? Is it OK to kill someone who is suffering from an incurable disease? If it is wrong to kill someone, then is capital punishment OK? If you have a choice of deliberately killing someone in order to save the lives of 2 other people, should you do it? What if it is 100 people? Or a million? What if it is a choice between killing an old man to save two babies? Or killing a baby to save two old men? I don't think philosophy can provide answers to any of these, but I think it requires some knowledge of philosophy to test the ideas.

I was thinking about this earlier. When I mentioned the lottery, strictly speaking it is not random. It is just unpredictable and so appears random. The UK premium bond prize, on the other hand, really is random. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#ERNIE I would only categorise those produced by ionizing radiation as random. Others, such as errors in replication or horizontal gene transfer are just unpredictable (but fully deterministic). But it erally doesn't matter. Your extrapolation to all change being random is just wrong. There is absolutely no need to invoke quantum effects (the only source of real randomness) here. You apply a force and the atoms move. There is, admittedly, a very small chance that the car could suddenly find itself on Titan (*) but that hasn't yet. (*) perhaps due to a chrono-synclastic infundibulum.

I agree that "continuous acceleration" is not clear. However, the atoms will continue to experience random accelerations even when the body is at room temperature; it will still radiate energy at the same rate it absorbs it from the environment.

Because of the contextual deixis, I simply wanted to check that I had properly understood the reference of the anaphor. Just to avoid any possible confusion. Where did you get that idea from? Conservation of momentum (or angular momentum) is always conserved. So no one is going to disagree with your "instant by instant" statement. Well, strictly speaking, this is a venue for you to present and explain your theory. However, the reason we are having this discussion now is because you asked what physics said about the stability of the Earth's orbit. As there is no reason to think it should be unstable, I am just trying to understand what the question really means in order to attempt an answer. I have no idea why you should think that. My questions are only intended to clarify and understand what you are saying.

Indeed. They are one of my favourite answers to idiotswho ask, "have you ever seen a sub-atomic particle?"

To get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism#Sources_of_magnetism Then you can ask about any bits you don't understand.

Related to that, worth checking out swansont's latest blog post: http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/15427 But I'm not sure a cloud chamber is appropriate for this application.

I have never thought much about the relationship between this and the behaviour of individual particles. I assume this thermal radiation arises because individual atoms (and the charged particles within them) are constantly being accelerated by their interactions. That is pretty cool.

I notice that in you book you mention "galaxies that appear to be older than the universe". Can you provide a reference to these, as there is no such thing, as far as I know. You also say that "the universe is now believed to be roughly 30 billion light years in diameter". Even allowing for the fact that you mean the observable universe not the universe, that figure is about a factor of three too small. Do you have a source for that number? (Your description of redshift is ... well, embarrasing. "Not even wrong." I definitely won't be recommending this book to anyone.)

Hearing voices can be a symptom of many different things. Some serious, some less so. If it happens again, see a doctor. And try and get a better attitude towards mental illness!

Yes, you will get the strongest pattern when both are equally illuminated (or when they have an equal probability of a photon going through them). I can't quite visualise what you are doing here. But clearly changing the setup will change the pattern. If you look at individual photons, each one will be random. But if you look at a large number, then the effect is identical to shining a continuous light. You are right. You do get a similar interference effect with a single slit, because light is diffracted from each edge. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61455/how-can-a-single-slit-diffraction-produce-an-interference-pattern (I am not quite sure that that is exactly what you are seeing with your fingers; that might be something to do with the overlapping unfocussed images in the eye. But I really don't know. And well done for spotting it!) I'm not sure about that. Ideally, the light should be a plane wave when it hits the slits, which implies a wide source. I think this is normally approximated by having the source some distance from the slits. That shouldn't matter. The slits are small enough that each behaves as a new point source.

The detector depends on the type of particles used. It could be photographic film or a phosphorescent screen (like an old-fashioned CRT dispaly) with a camera to record each flash, or probably something like the sensor in a digital camera. I expect there are other possibilities (I don't know what they use when the experiment is done with larger molecules). It always behaves like both. Or neither. It has some wavelike properties (frequency, wavelength, polarization, etc) and some particle like properties (being quantised, spin, etc). If you measure a wavelike property then the particle will appear wavelike (by definition) if you measure a particle-like property, then it will appear particle like.

So it is only wrong if you get caught? That appears to be a non sequitur. Not all changes are brought about by genes. Not all changes require random processes. That is pretty obvious. I can turn the steering wheel of my car to chnage the direction of my car. There is nothing random about that. Most things are not random - the majority of the world above the quantum level is deterministic. Have you ever played billiards or snooker? There is nothing random about the way balls change direction and speed. This is pretty irrelevant. It doesn't change the argument if we assume that all diversity is caused by mutation and all mutation is random (I'm not sure either of those are true).

Particles do not always emit radiation. Only the acceleration of charged particles causes radiation to be emitted.

Which part do you need more explanation of? (And why not Wikipedia, if it has a good explanation?)

That is irrelevant to dark matter. Why do you think the evidence for dark matter should be ignored? Have you modelled or simulated this to show that it produces structures similar to those we see? Or is this just a guess? What mechanism would cause this not to be symmetrical? It sounds as if you have as many unanswered questions as the existing theory....

I have to admit, I don't really understand much of that. Are you saying that the answer is that there is no answer? (All theories are wrong.) Edit: And I am not even sure what problem is being solved by this approach ... Oh well.

Conservation of momentum is also very relevant to a single body. When you say "that phenomenon", do you mean conservation of momentum? If so, then that is applied during the Earth's orbit of the Sun. Can you explain why you think it is not? All conservation laws are the results of symmetries. In the case of angular momentum, it is a consequence of space being isotropic; i.e. the laws of physics are the same in all directions. The maths of this is over my head, so don't ask me to explain it! You have not explained why, or in what way, you think the Earth would not be stable. I'm not sure what you mean by "conserved instant by instant". Conservation laws are always true, so of course they are true at every instant. So I assume you mean something else. Could you try to explain it more clearly?

If they have never been detected, why are they thought to exist? Are you suggesting that they have been "invented" for no reason? Can you show that this produces the observed spectrum? Can you show, in appropriate detail how it does this? Are you familiar with the work of Isaac Newton, specifically the Shell Theorem? Also, can your theory predict the quantities of hydrogen and helium in the universe?

Can you quantify that?

I don't really understand the first part (randomness is non-deterministic by definition, but you can also have non-random change) and I don't see why both are needed. Some mutations are random.