Strange

Most atoms do not decay.

As I am not a mind reader, I have no idea what you are talking about. As electrons clearly have wave properties (electron microscope, double-slit interference, etc) and can also be constrained to circular movements (e.g. in a synchrotron) it would seem you are wrong. The only quanta I am aware of with no charge and no mass is the photon. What do you want to know about it?

These appear to be mutually exclusive goals. Also, it is not clear that there is anything patentable here. Thirdly, you have blown your chance of obtaining a patent by publishing the information. The good news is that you have also prevented anyone else patenting the information (unless they have already done so).

Arithmetic. Not even math. I thought they were reasonably well defined: average density of dark matter (easy to look up), volume within Earth's orbit (easy to calculate), compared to the mass of the Sun (easy to look up). The other question you were worrying about was the time delay for light from the near and far edges of a galaxy. This is even easier: you can take our galaxy as typical and divide its diameter by the distance you suggest (100,000 / 250,000,000). You will get a tiny percentage (0.04%). So it is up to you to show how that minute difference could be significant. I would guess it is less than the margin of error in the distance. I never said anything about the number of atoms, so I don't know what you are referring to.

So are you saying that the absence of evidence is evidence for ET visitors? Or are you just speculating?

By providing evidence?

That is well known and well understood. Those heavier elements also appear in the the solar spectrum. All the matter around you, other than the hydrogen, came from that source. That doesn't change the fact that the sun is almost entirely hydrogen and hydrogen. All the science we know is "theory at best"; a theory is as good as it gets in science.

Good. That is progress. Maybe you will be willing to learn now, instead of making things up.

I had never bothered to do that conversion. I don't know why I would. That is a different number than you have been taking about, anyway. Miles are rarely, if ever, used in science. You need to switch to kilometers. The mile is defined as 1,609.344 metres.

This is not a science question but one of history or linguistics. It looks as if "miles per hour" dates from the 18th century, with MPH being much more modern: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=miles+per+hour%2Cmph&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cmiles%20per%20hour%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bmiles%20per%20hour%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMiles%20per%20Hour%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMiles%20per%20hour%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cmph%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bmph%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMPH%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BmpH%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMph%3B%2Cc0 As you suggest, this probably depends on the development of vehicles fast enough, or measurement tools accurate enough, for the unit to be useful. (Note that most of the world does not use miles anymore.) Feel free to delude yourself if it makes you happy.

I'm sure you do. However, science depends on evidence and mathematical theories, not "feelings". No, because the length of an hour varied according to the time of year and the latitude. So there is no fixed relationship like this. (And note that 1 second can only be equivalent to a distance at a particular speed; it can never be equal to a distance.) Remaining nonsense skipped. This is not a science question but one of history or linguistics. It looks as if "miles per hour" dates from the 18th century, with MPH being much more modern: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=miles+per+hour%2Cmph&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cmiles%20per%20hour%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bmiles%20per%20hour%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMiles%20per%20Hour%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMiles%20per%20hour%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cmph%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bmph%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMPH%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BmpH%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMph%3B%2Cc0

It sounds like they mean "professional science" where people got paid to do it. Some people say that Francis Bacon (16th century) was the first modern scientist because of his use of practical experiments. Others would put it earlier, perhaps with the Ancient Greeks, or later. It has evolved rather than "started". Didn't we cover this already? The measurement of time, and division into hours was started by the Egyptians and the Babylonians because astronomy and accurate calendars were very important to them. We get our 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour from the Babylonians as well. Time is considered to be a dimension (like spatial distance). It is incorrect to say that time is decay. No. Hard to say. The brick in space can only cool by radiation. The brick on Earth can cool by radiation, conduction and convection. But it will be cooled less by radiation because the air insulates it. The answer will depend on the temperature and humidity of the air, and how much it is moving.

No, because we are in Earth's shadow. So we are not dazzled by sunlight (and the bright blue sky). You might be right there. The Hubble space telescope, for example, is a big camera. Also, many space probes use camareas to find stars so they can use them for navigation.

Sigh. The difference is volume. If you did a bit of basic arithmetic, it might make more sense. Given the density of dark matter (for simplicity, assume it is constant everywhere) work out the mass of dark matter within the Earth's orbit and how much gravitational effect it will have on the Earth. For simplcity, you don't even have to work out the last bvit (it might involve something advanced like squaring a number). Just work out the mass of the dark matter relative to the Sun. See, it is a really tiny number. Now do the same thing for the galaxy and work out the mass of the dark matter compared to the mass of the stars See a much larger number. Now you can see quite clearly why it has a noticeable effect on the scale of the galaxy and no noticeable effect on the scale of the solar system. And actually, it is worse than that. The density of dark matter increases towards the center of the galaxy, making the effect on galactic scales even greater. It depends what you mean. It doesn't matter in any practical sense. But it is part of understanding how the universe works. OK. If you have done the arithmetic, can you show the results and explain why you think it is significant? Correct. By looking at more distant galaxies we are effectively looking back in time as well as at things which are some distance away. That is how we know when the expansion started accelerating. By looking at recessional velocities at different times. Are you surprised that scientists already know this and take it into account?

Yes. http://what-if.xkcd.com/58/ No, it is the bright sunlight that makes it impossible to see the stars during the day. Just look at how faint the moon is when it is up during the day. Are you deaf? ASTRONAUTS CAN SEE STARS IN SPACE.

No. Gravity causes the planets to move in elliptical orbits. This was proved by Newton a long time ago. I don't know where you read that but it is wrong. Chris Hadfield (the astronaut who had the YouTube video singing Starman on the Space Station) has written about how amwazing the stars look from space. Why shouldn't we be able to see them? From the amount of light a bright star emits, use the inverse square law and work out how bright it will appear from Earth. Easily visible. The atmosphere absorbs light and makes stars harder to see. That is why the put telescopes in space. The momentum comes from the launch. Most of the energy does not go into lifting the satellite straight up, but into accelerating it to the velocity it needs to stay in orbit. Their rotational velocity is the same as the Earth's rotational velocity and so they appear to be stationary.

That is not the same thing. You are using "absolute" to mean common or agreed upon. There is no absolute calendar system that can tell you what the date "really" is. In the same way, there is no absolute frame of reference that can tell you what your speed or position "really" is.

It looks reasonable. Yes, it is true that the planets move backwards and forwards across the sky (relative to the stars). If you try and understand this in terms of the planets orbiting the Earth (which is what the Greeks believed) then you end up having to invent complicated orbits with extra cycles on top (epicycles). http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html No. Because when you realise that the planets orbit the Sun, the problem disappears. Their simple elliptical orbits around the Sun fully explain their motion across the sky.

I have only ever used MySQL and it has been good enough for all of the projects I have needed to do. It is also free.

The overwhelming majority of organisms do not have any such thing. And for the overwhelming majority of the time during which evolution happened, NO organisms had such responses. No it isn't What is "infinite probability? That makes no sense. This directly contradicts your claim B above. Wrong. The more you write about this essay, the clearer it becomes that it is ignorant hogwash. I hope that one day you will be open minded enough to learn something about how evolution really works. You may be even more surprised and amazed by reality, rather than fairy tales.

Because we only relatively recently had measurements accurately to show the discrepancies. It has no magical properties. There is absolutely nothing magical about it at all. Why do you make up stupid straw-man arguments like that? That is not a problem at all. It is exactly what is expected of dark matter. How about that: this "magical" material behaves exactly as predicted by physics. A feeling is of very little value. Unless backed up by theory and evidence. So you admit the problem is with your understanding. How can you claim that when you don't understand the model and admit you cannot grasp the things that you think are missing. Again, the problem appears to be with you and your understanding, not with the science. Correct. Why not? Look at the density of dark matter and calculate the gravitational effects it would have. Now see if that could be detected. I leave this as an exercise for you because you will learn more that way, than if someone just tells you. (Clue: the correct answer is that the effect will be so small as to be undetectable with current technology.) I would advise you to stop relying on imagination and learn a little basic science. It will be much more productive. Why don't you do a bit of simple arithmetic and check if this is a significant factor?

Not as far as I know. It looks like you are trying to find something to fit some preconceived idea. That is not a very scientific or open minded (or sane) approach.

I am not aware of any such connection. And I am not sure why there would be a connection. The Sun's magnetic field is far more likely to be a significant factor.

I don't know about "bands" but the speed of rotation of the outer layers varies in different places - because it is a fluid and there is complex convection and other flows going on. I think the deeper layers rotate at a more constant rate.

I don't see what there is to debate about that. Unless you are claiming that spectroscopy doesn't work?