Strange

Why not stay and actually answer some questions?

Thanks. Only slightly ( ) over my head!

Newton's third law is about force, in the very specific sense used in physics. It says nothing about life, karma, love, interior design, the optimum cooking time for turkey, or any of the other irrelevant nonsense people try and relate it to. This appears to be yet another non sequitur.

There is no "mechanism". It is just the way space (as described by GR) behaves when there is a homogeneous distribution of matter. Space. Although, as someone pointed out last time you asked, it is entirely possible to transform to coordinates where space doesn't expand but time changes instead. But that is less intuitive, doesn't map in an obvious way to what we observe and (I am told) makes some things more complicated mathematically.

You don't have to treat the universe as an isolated system to prove conservation laws. You can take a subset of the universe, isolate it and prove that you are wrong. What evidence do you have that any matter has a "purpose"? But perhaps you need to define what you mean by purpose. And then explain how your idea of purpose is relevant to the violation of physical laws. I don't know where that quote is from or who it is by or how it is relevant. Similarly, you still haven't explained the relevance of free will (or what you mean by free will). You seem to think that throwing another non sequitur into the conversation every time you are shown to be wrong is a productive way of discussing things. It isn't.

Good points, well made. Many of the problems of the discussion of free will come down to people not defining what they mean. For example, the OP seems to have in mind the ideas that God doesn't make our choices for us. That is, perhaps, the most restrictive and least useful definition. You are suggesting a definition based on a predictable (in principle) and mechanistic view of the brain. But even if neither is true, even if we are completely free to make choices independent of any internal or external factors, even if our choices are completely random, then any definition of free will is incompatible with omniscience. Because omniscience allows only one answer to the question "could you have made a different choice?" And that is "no" because the choice is known in advance. This seems to disprove the possibility of omniscience rather than free will.

But the existence or otherwise of free will still has nothing to do with your claim. There is no evidence for that and it contradicts conservation laws. No.

The dyne force has been accurately measured. The effect of a dyne (or newton) force on a given mass has been accurately measured. However, you still seem to be confusing energy and force. You can't expect to get very far if you can't correctly manipulate these basic concepts. This takes us back to where I said "I'll leave it there" in post 70. I stopped there because I wanted to be sure I understood what you were saying. You seem to have confirmed that. You predict a decrease in effective mass with greater acceleration. SR predicts an increase in effective mass with greater velocity. So, if we can find one or more observations which involve large accelerations and large velocities we should be able to compatre what happens and test whether your theory or SR is more accurate. This should be simple as the two theories make opposite results. Your theory suggests that acceleration for a given force should increase (because mass decreases). SR suggests that acceleration for a given force should decrease (because mass increases). So, one obvious source of suitable data is the acceleration of particles in accelerators such as the LHC. This involves large values of acceleration to high velocities. This should be a perfect place to test these predictions. It turns out that particle accelerators have to make adjustments to the expected acceleration and velocity that are exactly in line with SR. And therefore opposite to the predictions of your theory. And as some particle accelerators work with electrons (as well as the protons and heavy ions used in the LHC) they are working with the smallest amount of matter - according to your theory. Which brings us to: So mass is quantized and the unit of mass is the electron mass. This is falsified by (at least) two observations: 1. There are particles with less mass than the electron. 2. There are particles with masses that are not integer multiples of the electron mass. I honestly don't think there is any point discussing the idea further as it is clearly falsified by the existing evidence. (And this is not surprising as you clearly have a very weak grasp of even schoolboy physics.)

Please show that this is the case.

This is an unsupported assertion and, as such, can be ignored. There is nothing to be disproved. Will that do? If you want to present an idea with either some theoretical or evidential support so that it can be discussed, then please feel free. But coming up with random, unfalsifiable statements like this ("there is a family of baby dragons in the Oort cloud", "the insides of black holes are solid chocolate", "electrons smell of vanilla", etc.) is just a waste of time.

This is the "paradigm shift" model described by Kuhn. This does happen quite often. There have been several just in my lifetime. Including ... That was how particle physics operated when I was young. There was a "zoo" of particles with no obvious pattern or connections between them. Then the quark model cam along and we are down to 17 particles of 3 basic types. And some (small) number of possible extensions depending on which way the next paradigm shift goes. I am an engineer. We share some of the processes, rigour and dependence on quantitative evidence with science. But we are trying to produce practical products rather than determine general underlying principles (which is what science does). Science can't ever say that what we know so far is "true" because you can never have that level of certainty (similarly, as engineers, we can never say that this new design will definitely work). There is no proof, just "not shown to be wrong yet".

I seem to remember that there were places during the plague where that was the reaction. Anyone who fell ill was basically shut in their house and abandoned (with the whole family). Of course, in that case, the disease was carried by fleas so it made no difference at all.

There have been (are) diseases which have spread more widely and killed a similar proportion of people (e.g. the black death, bubonic plague). These caused major problems and changes in society but nothing close to extinction. Probably, depending on their initial health and level of resistance. Not at all. The number of infections from those being cared for is minute compared to the spread in the general population. It is ignorance of the symptoms and risks that causes the spread of the disease. I don't think it would be effective and, as you say, it is never going to happen that way.

They do not anticipate anything. They dumly follow the paths dictated by simple mechanics. There is no information, late or otherwise. But note that if there was a change in the Earth (e.g. it disappeared or moved) then the moon would not react until 1.3 seconds later when the changed gravitational field had propagated there. This has absolutely nothing to do with the way people interact. And I doubt many people "go randomly"; initial reactions to people are based on our human nature and past experiences with other people.

That is interesting. Is there somewhere I can read a (simple) description of that?

Exactly. It is a unit of force, not mass. The energy required to accelerate something depends on the velocity achieved. There is no direct relationship between force and energy. This mixing up of units (force equals mass, force equals energy) is one of the things that makes it hard for anyone to comment reasonably on your ideas. It makes them appear wrong prima-facie. That doesn't really answer the question. Is mass (quantized in your model)? (A simple yes or no should suffice) If yes, is the quantum of mass equal to the mass of the electron?

That makes no sense. Not really. It becomes obvious that all you are doing is filtering out a few primes by their factors which occur in the pattern. By the way, what yu refer to as a "sine wave" is not a sine wave. If anything, it is a triangular wave.

Maybe. But ... That is not the case for gravitational lensing. All frequencies are affected equally. But also many more differences. (Your comments are so vague and confused, there isn't much more to say.)

That is the difference between not being able to predict behaviour (even in principle) in deterministic systems and non-deterministic behaviour. As far as we know, quantum level effects, like when a particular atom will decay, are genuinely random; i.e. with no cause. Galaxies and atoms can't anticipate anything.

So you are claiming that all of the cells in your body are your children? Sheer total and absolute nonsense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction Only if it is a single celled organism. You can't shift the burden of proof like that. You are the one making a new claim. It is up to you to support it by something other than repeated assertion. Perhaps by referencing a definition of reproduction that includes forming a small temporary lump on the surface that bears no resemblance to the parent. But as you ask, and I am feeling kind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction Note the recursive definition: new offspring are produced from parent organisms, all organisms are the result of reproduction. If reproduction did not produce new organisms which are copies of the parents, the species would be extinct after a single life time.

Thank you. There are many other threads where I cannot even begin to address what was said. And then someone smarter than me comes along and provides some brilliant insight!

Where is that quotation from?

The observable universe is obviously finite. Beyond that, we don't know. And, equally obviously, the observable universe must have had a finite size in the early universe. But, if the rest of the universe is infinite now, then it was probably infinite then. (There are models, which I am not familiar with, where a finite universe can become infinite.) As we don't even have a theory for how, or even if, a finite universe can originate there is nothing to prefer. (The big bang model says nothing about the origin of the universe and nothing about whether it is finite or infinite.)

As a bit of trivia, it seems the Earth may be smoother than a billiard ball, but not as smooth as a bowling ball. http://what-if.xkcd.com/46/

For example, the OP's repeated claim that a mountain (a minute deformation of the surface) is an example of reproduction (where offspring go off, grow up and have their own offspring).