Sayonara

I am not sure this is really a subject which causes problems for most of our members. I would imagine that on average, someone who is a regular visitor here is more likely to be the kind of person able to comprehend and/or visualise these kinds of distances. OTOH, looking at that link posted by Arch2008 and reading down the right-hand column gives a very entertaining insight.

Actually, "The 300 Spartans" was released in 1962, decades before computer generated effects, and was directed by Rudolph Maté. The film you refer to is simply called "300". There is an amusing video on Youtube in which the creator uses footage from The 300 Spartans to recreate the modern "300" trailer almost exactly - seek it out Where did Becker make the opening comments? I have been required to read about his theories recently and I'd be interested in following this one up. [edit] never mind - just saw the closing line.

It's good when something positive comes out of being criticised!

Go for it Pioneer. I don't think there is any remote chance of a successful hijack in this thread.

Well, this is your problem in a nutshell: 18,000 words is 1/4 of your average paperback novel. There is no research scientist with enough time on their hands to carefully read 18,000 words on a topic with a vague title. The usual approach is to go straight to the maths, which should aptly summarise the thoughts behind the work and indicate whether investing a day in reading the whole thing is worth it... but you don't provide any. This is so contrary to convention that it does not engender much faith in the rest of the content. Secondly, a blog is not the format in which we expect to read a theory. It's newest material at the top (i.e. it doesn't read chronologically) so does that mean we have to fish about in the archives for the start of your articles, then read backwards? Where is the abstract, if any? That would really help. I am still not sure what the "nonlocally acting cause" is, what it does, or why we need one. I think in your case, collaboration with someone who is well versed in maths and publishing conventions would be a good idea. It's difficult to get any idea across if you don't use the expected protocols.

Three movies and three spin-offs, if you count everything which has been green-lighted and/or released.

That is beside the point. You either have a hypothesis which is ready to be critiqued, or you do not.

You might have given it some thought before you started writing, to be quite frank.

No, he does not need to "prove" anything. He only has to highlight the shortcomings of your approach - it is up to you to either show how they are not in fact shortcomings, or fix them. If you can do neither then the hypothesis has pretty much failed. Learning to drop the dead donkey is a part of scientific enquiry.

Wrong. Your hypothesis, your argument.

That was not an invitation for you to make more proclamations in my direction. This thread is called "Theory of Everything". PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

New Science, I feel it is only fair to warn you that the moderators have been instructed not to indulge pseudoscience/speculation threads where the same extraordinary claims are persistently made without any credible explanation.

But BSG runs on Sci Fi, which was part of Vivendi when the backdoor pilot aired and has been part of NBC since the serial began...

IIRC, Apple know what has been downloaded to your client. If you remember, you can authorise music purchased through iTunes for "five computers or(?) burned discs". You MUST remember to deauthorise the old computer through the iTunes menu, otherwise that laptop will still count towards your five. The first time you try to play a track which you bought through the store with iTunes on your new laptop, you will be prompted to authorise the music by entering your iTunes password.

I think we are done with this now.

I prefer animal testing to necromancy. Why does this thread in particular always attract the voodoo priests?

Just because we have a forum entitled "Speculations" does not mean we will indulge any old hat.

The test is not in providing the right answer, but in pattern matching the correct answer to an obfuscated clue.

That's all well and good, but making baseless proclamations under the self-aggrandising pretext of being a visionary thinker confers no scientific merit whatsoever.

I understand the point of the dolls, but I don't get why each doll has a bizarre quote next to it, like: That particular doll is described as "She is our beautiful blonde Friend with blue eyes". O----kay. They all seem to be described as being from "Eastern Europe", or "Northern Europe" (except for one which is from a Bavarian Forest, wtf?). Europia must be where all the Downs' Syndrome kids are coming from.

This thread has no merits of any kind and as such is wasting both our database space, and our time. Please do not resurrect this topic for a third pass; it will simply be locked on sight.

What is the point of this thread? Science, "New" or otherwise, does not deal in popular votes.

So what you are saying, is that X-rays differ from radio waves because they are different colours?

I like the way YT took a cheeky thread title and turned it into an irony.

Why are you resurrecting this thread to talk about international espionage?