Strange

There are multiple lines of evidence for dark matter. Why would anyone have invented it without evidence?

I assume that refers to the observable universe which is, of course, finite.

I have had better conversations with my dog.

Newton's first law: the Earth will continue in a straight line unless acted on by a force. This would carry it away from the Sun. Newton's second law: the Earth will be accelerated towards the Earth by the force of gravity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion When the continuous acceleration towards the sun (2nd law) is balanced by the movement away from the sun (1st law) then it will be in a stable orbit. It will stay in that orbit unless you provide another force to either speed it up, or slow it down. After which it will find another stable orbit where its new speed balances the force of gravity. From here: http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~mab/education/astro103/lectures/l2/l2.html From: http://hsc.csu.edu.au/physics/core/space/9_2_2/922net.html#net7 More here: http://astro.unl.edu/naap/pos/pos_background2.html Even more detail here: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites

No. Critical and analytical thinking skills, for example, have to be learned - in other words taught - and are improved by training. Education is not (just) about memorizing facts. In as far as some things do have to be memorized, that is much easier if you develop (are taught) a good understanding of the subject first.

If the universe is infinite, then it has always been infinite.

Hi Buddy, how are you? No, what do you want to talk about? Can we talk about girls? Can we talk about girls? That's a good idea. Do you have a girlfriend? ok good, you know how it is guy man and then it crashed

I think some of it comes from the fact that some people come up with some vague (*) notion (everything is, like, nothing and something, you know, like -1 and 1 its all so obvious to me - it explains everything) and, because they label it a "theory of everything" they think it belongs in physics. Because that is what all physyicists do, right: seacrh for the theory of everything. (*) Of course there are Real Philosophers who have explored similar ideas but (a) they do it with a bit more depth of thought and (b) they acknowledge it is philiosophy and not science. Anything that includes an XKCD reference counts as a valid contribution.

A Fairy Ring cycle?

I'm not sure. Well, not in technical documents maybe. Last time I had this discussion I checked through the (several thousand word) document I was working on and found no use the passive. So maybe there is little need for it. On the other hand, when documenting user interfaces it can be appropriate (arguably). For example (made up on the spur of the moment): "When you click the Add button, a dialog will be displayed where you can enter the name and serial number of the new component" Now, that could be replaced with "WidgetMagic 2.0 will display a dialog" but I'm not convinced that either is significantly better/worse. I am told (but have no direct experience) that the passive mood can make life harder for translators into some languages. Regarding action, there are places where passive mood can focus the reader on the right thing, e.g. when revealing surprising information: "As the getaway car sped away round the corner, he saw it was being driven by his wife" The active alternatve ("As the getaway car sped away round the corner, he saw hat his wife was driving it") is just a bit ... flat.

Why quantum mechanics, specifically?

Sorry, but unless you can eliminate obvious mundane explanations (such as balloons) there is nothing to consider. There is no point saying "this is an anomalous plasma lifeform" (or whatever) when there are dozens of other possible explanations. You need to prove that these other explanations are impossible before anyone would consider something extraordinary.

It says "what" in response to every input. And I have given you a downvote to get you to the round -100

Wrong. You are obviously not reading what is written (or hearing what is said). You are filtering it through your own prejudices and preconceptions and changing it. This may explain why you are so confused. The whole point of the thought experiment is to demonstrate that there is no (global, unique) meaning to "at the same time". It would therefore be ridiculous to start with that assumption. It can be determined by someone anywhere by taking the distance and speed of propagation into account. Einstein places the observers at the midway point purely to simplify the explanation. They don't. It is your deliberate misunderstanding of the words that creates contradictions. The existence of those contradictions should cause you to question your understanding. (But, like all cranks, you are convinced that your are right and everyone else -- and reality -- is wrong.) Yes. That is the basis for saying that the lightning strikes are simultaneous in his frame of reference. Obviously not. The text says ... Let me repeat that as it proves that you are not reading what it says: the text says that the person on the train and the person on the platform are aligned when the lightning strikes: The person on the train is moving. It takes a finite time for the light the reach her. Therefore she will no longer be aligned with the platform observer when the light arrives. No. You need to learn to read. The "same time" is defined in a single consistent way, as seen by the platform observer:

And that video is probably why no one will take this stuff seriously.

There is no evidence for any such singularity. No idea. As far as I know it hasn't yet made any testable predictions. But I don't think any of the other routes to quantum gravity have either. Unknown and unknown.

Indeed. Famously, Einstein was among those who were never entirely happy with the full implications of quantum mechanics.

Then you would be wrong. If Planck actually said that, it is also rather ironic. The paradigm-changing theory he helped develop was well accepted in his lifetime. Just goes to show that even good scientists can have erroneous beliefs.

Yep. That's the basis of evolution and, presumably, pre-biotic "chemical evolution". The point about the deap-sea vent hypothesis is that it proposes specific chemical pathways and finds supporting evidence in biochemistry and genetics. The same is true for other hypotheses for abiogenesis. Do you have any specific suggestions for the mechanisms involved?

I don't know. Or even have a gut feel for the relative magnitudes. I would have to do some research to find out. So I suggest you do it.

Firstly, if you are talking about cosmological red-shift then you are talking about a (general) relativistic effect, not Doppler. And there is an exactly corresponding time dilation (see supernova light curves, for example). However, whether you are talking about local galaxies in relative motion or cosmological redshift, you still have';t explained how a constant offset can change teh relative velocities. The velocities within the galaxy are measured by the varying red-shift cause by the rotation. There is then a CONSTANT added (subtracted?) to all of these for the cosmological red shift (or Doppler effect for relative motion). So, if the velocities were decreasing with increasing radius, as predicted, and you add the same amount to all of them - then they will still be decreasing with increasing radius. And, if the velocities are constant with increasing radius, as observed, and you add the same amount to all of them - then they will still be constant with increasing radius. I don't understand how you think that the extra cosmological (or Doppler) red shift is going to change the graph from A to B (see post 9). All it can do is shift the whole curve up or down a bit. What am I missing?

No it loses mass (and energy) that way.

How? And how many bits do you need to store this? (This is determined by how accurately you want to measure the position.) And how are you going to measure the position? Servo-motors? A to D converters? How quickly can you make these measurements? What about noise? How much power does it consume? How big is this machine going to be? I'm not sure you have really thought through the engineering and implementation issues. (And lasers are not detectors)

You need to say, in practical terms, how you would use that to store data in a computer.

I still don't understand what you are trying to say. Lets look at an analogy. Imagine you have a circular racetrack with many lanes. There is a car going round in each lane. You have a theory that predicts (for whatever reason) that the cars in the inner lanes will be going faster than the ones on the out lanes. But when you measure their speeds, you find that all the cars are going at the same speed. But then you find out that the racetrack is in a part of space where time runs at half the rate. So the cars are all going twice as fast (*) as you measured them to be. But they are all still at the same speed. I don't see how adding time dilation can make the relative speeds of the cars change. (*) Or half the speed. I'm confused! But they are still all the same...