Strange

Your hijack about consciousness was moved to Trash.

No. It would be impossible to design many of the components in your computer with a knowledge of quantum theory. Apparently not. By the way, quoting someone but changing their words is dishonest.

This doesn't increase the mass of the object, just its apparent weight (due to acceleration). Note that the spring balance will only show an increased weight while it is accelerating; once the system reaches a constant velocity the weight will return to that measured at rest. Because, as we all know, there is no difference between being "at rest" and in a state of steady (inertial) motion.

I can't imagine why you would suggest that. It works extremely well. Without it, you wouldn't have a computer to make the suggestion ...

It is actually the change in gravitational potential, due to the altitude. Some things can be predicted with certainty, others only with a probability. Random events can only be predicted with probability. Non-random events can be predicted exactly. And yet, it matched predictions very well. It is constant under constant conditions. A lot of effort is made to keep conditions constant or to adjust for those that cannot be. You are lucky, because swansont is an expert in this area. You could learn a lot from him, if you can keep your immature arrogance under control. It probably depends where you are. There is a lot of microwave energy at ground level, in some places, from cell phone towers, etc. How this varies with altitude is probably very complex.

The lack of rigor in pointing that you are dragging the thread off topic by talking about non-scientific subjects.

It isn't enough to just check single digit numbers. For example, by your test 362881 would be prime as it is not (I don't think!) divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9. But it is divisible by 19. Prime numbers are exactly the same in binary as in any other base. In fact, when computers do arithmetic, including a prime number test, they do it in binary.

Yes. You have a model. You can use the model to make predictions. That is the glory of math. The next step is that you test your prediction against observations. And there you are doing science. Surely, we have been here before. It will run faster. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html#c3 I have no idea where you get that from. No and No. Tough. It works. You can measure the effect. Technology such as GPS has to take it into account. No one really cares whether you think it happens or not.

I suppose it depends how much further out B is than A. If B is 6 times as far from the center as A is, then yes. As you have drawn the diagram, then no. In other words, who knows? Sorry, you lose. But we weren't talking about timing something, we were talking about calculating trajectories. So (amazingly) you are right: timing devices are irrelevant. Wouldn't it be better to spend a bit of time learning something rather than embarrassing yourself by repeatedly posting the nonsense that you make up?

What is the difference? Maybe you think that after a year, the Earth will be back exactly where it was? Unfortunately, planetary orbits are not that simple. If you want to do it accurately, then maybe. One of the reasons that Einstein developed GR was because it was known that Newton's laws of gravitation gave the wrong results for some planets. I have no idea what it means.

Then please demonstrate, quantitatively, that it makes a difference and what that difference is. Please also demonstrate, quantitatively, that this difference is greater than the error in the estimate of the distance to the galaxy. Simply repeating "it has to be taken into consideration" (without doing so and showing that you get a different result) is just not very convincing I'm afraid. Well? Does it? It is up to you to answer this. You need to provide a reason why they should not. But the thickness of the crust has no effect on things at a sufficiently large scale. For example, it is irrelevant to calculating the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. (If you are going to challenge that, then please provide a quantitative argument instead of "but maybe it is".) You have that almost exactly the wrong way round.

How is that NOT calculating where they will be at a given time? And yet, the theory of space-time works. Your deluded ramblings don't. So I'll stick with the science.

It is your refusal to do even the simplest test of your ideas that is frustrating. Even if someone else does the simple arithmetic for you to show that there is a minute 0.04% difference between the front and the back of a distant galaxy, you simply ignore it. Can you explain how it is significant? I assume not. You just want to believe that science must have it wrong for no reason.

That is the whole point. You compare the effects of different velocities and gravity against the predictions of the model for those different conditions. That is how science (and engineering) works. And the important point is that it works. It comes up with useful results. I give up. You have sunk to new levels of stupidity. In the past I hoped you might be capable of learning something. But you are obviously too arrogant for that.

So now you have decided to explore philosophy, with your usual level of insight and understanding. Great.

No. In the sense that only living things (and possibly only humans) care about time. But time obviously exists for all things. And, equally obviously, not all things decay.

Yes. Saying "an electron is a wave" is inaccurate. Saying "an electron is a particle" is inaccurate. Electrons have some properties that are similar to waves and some properties that are similar to particles. They are not either. Massless particles (photons) travel in straight lines at the speed of light. Massive particles can travel at any speed less than the speed of light, depending on their energy. They normally travel in straight lines. If they have electrical charge then an electrical or magnetic field can alter their velocity (speed them up, slow them down, change their direction).

If it is unfalsifiable, then it is not science and, as you say, has no place in this discussion.

This? http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/27133.aspx http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7511/full/nature13559.html?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureMagazine http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.4992 Maybe someone else can explain what this is about. It is over my head. But I assume that the trajectories are not physical paths through space, but through state space?

You don't need to see the whole universe. One reason science (and engineering) works is because we can (using mathematics) determine what is significant and what isn't. You are trying to use some sort of poor grasp of physics, your instincts and not much else to make bad guesses about the way things work. Prove it. You can make any old vague claims you like. But as you appear to have approximately zero understanding of the science involved, and are not even prepared to do kindergarten-level arithmetic to test your ideas, I see no reason to take your thoughts seriously. On the other hand, a lot of people have worked very hard to develop and test models of the way the universe works. Your "I'm too lazy to try and learn anything so it must be wrong" whinging is just pathetic. Even for a 14 year old.

I would guess that she was bent down (head near her knees) and then straightened up quickly, throwing her hair into the air.

Only in Genesis. And that is part of your problem. A more mature and scientific attitude would be for your "second sense" to tell you that you have not (yet) understood. This is why you are arrogant.

So you have scientific evidence that consciousness is prior to matter?

30 seconds: https://www.coursera.org/courses?orderby=upcoming&search=science&lngs=en&cats=physics,chemistry http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/science/physics-and-astronomy Of course, you need time and a certain amount of hard work to get the best from these courses. With no one pushing you do assignments or telling you what to do next, you need to be very self-disciplined and motivated.

If the stuff the universe was made of didn't behave in consistent ways, then it wouldn't be possible for the sort of structures (from atoms to molecules to planets and stars) to form. In which case, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. Which means either we wouldn't be around to ask the question or, if somehow we were, we would be asking "why doesn't the universe behave more consistently?" (This probably belongs in Philosophy, rather than Physics, IMO)