MigL

I don't think anyone has ever observed the orbits of Mercury and Venus behaving in the fashion that would indicate they were orbiting the sun as it orbits around a common CoM with the Earth. Mercury's orbit has been studied extensively, and is a 'foundational pillar' of GR. Probes have been sent to Venus; I doubt that could be done if we had the orbit all wrong. So, again, you are presenting assertions. Where is the evidence ???

Saying it ( no matter how many times ) does not make it true. Evidence please !

I have AVG ant-virus on some of my Win10 computers, and when AVG does an update, it locks me out of internet access, for some reason. Eventually, it crashes my connection to the router/modem. I have given up trying to find the problem, and simply disconnect power to the router/modem, and let them re-establish the network. My 'house' phone is an internet phone, so when I've got no dial tone, I know there's a problem with the network. Maybe I should just switch all my computers to Avast anti-virus, as they don't seem to give me any problems.

No. That balloon is a two dimensional representation of our universe, for ease of visualization. Our universe is, in effect, the SURFACE of that balloon ( reduced to just 2 dimensions ). And since the curvature of the universe is intrinsic, there is NO inside, and NO outside.

This is a forum where we engage in discussion for entertainment, and to expand our knowledge ( about science ). You have faith ? That's fine; no-one is trying to 'convert' you. But you have to understand that this is science, and this is how it works; it is based on evidence, repeatable experiments and observations, not faith. We don't tell you how to practice your faith; don't tell us how science is conducted. Why do you think it is OK to 'wrestle' with us, and to try and 'convert' us ?

I'm extremely confused by all this. Maybe a language issue ? You talk about the Big Bang, and movements of continental plates as if they are comparable time scales, and at the same time. I could see if you were talking about solar system formation as this might relate to the Earth's make up, but the Big Bang event was about 9 billion years earlier. We have theoretical grounds to believe light does not require a medium, and ( assuming no interactions ) unlimited lifetime. Unlike you, however, we have plenty of experimental and observational evidence to support our theories.

There are certain measurements and observations we can make, such as measuring the speed of light. To account for this speed, any medium must be extremely 'stiff', yet at the same time must allow motion through it with no resistance whatsoever, such that the M-M experiment yields aligned fringes. These are two contradicting requirements for the 'aether', and current theories work just fine ( as a matter of fact, excellent ) without it. Hence, it is of no use, and has been long discarded. What reason do you have to re-introduce it ?

Sooooo … no turning water into wine ?

I would let it go, but Phi is picky. I think he wants your own material, not other people's jokes, or ridiculous threads. We are all waiting …

Well, I can repeat ANY scientific experiment and get the same results. Can you repeat any miracles ?

Yeah, I guess you guys are right. Yusef got me all worked up with his 'predestination' thread. I was just wondering, if we stopped engaging them, would they go somewhere else to preach ?

oh, and valence band electrons don't move, as they form the bonds. Conduction band ( and sometimes semi-conduction band ) electrons ( and sometimes holes ) do.

Neither is compatible with science. Which is what we discuss here ! Beliefs are discussed on Religious sites. ( and I don't go there and post about Evolution; hint, hint ! )

I love and respect all you guys, but I would have thought you'd have learned by now. You can argue about scientific theory, facts, data, observations, etc., as these are things that are falsifiable. It is a totally different argument when you need to rely on evidence; Bartholomew Jones doesn't. Beliefs, like Religious beliefs, don't need evidence, so no-one will ever be convinced their beliefs are wrong. BartholomewJones will carry on believing as he does, no matter what evidence is presented to him. And we will go on relying on the scientific method, and evidence based thinking. this whole discussion is, then, pointless, as neither side will learn anything from the other. And we wi

It actually seems pretty intuitive to me. If you place any dots on a 1 dimensional substrate, like a rubber band, the dots 'move' away from each other with those same properties. If you put the dots on a 2 D substrate like a rubber sheet, you observe the same kind of 'motion' or effect. If you put the dots on a 3 D substrate, like raisins in sweet bread then bake it, you observe the same as it expands. Seems like it work all the time. Of course. How else would you explain the isotropy and homogeneity of the universe, when parts of it are increasingly distant for light ( information ) to ever reach. At one time the universe MUST have been small enough to be in causal ( local ) contact.

What does it say about you, if you're reborn as a dog in Yulin, China, during the dog meat eating festival ? ( apparently torture and skinning alive 'tenderizes' the meat )

I hate to burst your bubble ...

Hey Grinch, stop making everyone sad at Christmas time . ( Grinch is from Dr Seuss "How the Grinch stole Christmas" ) I recommend a movie called "Alpha", about a boy and his dog.

Don't let the artificially colored pictures fool you. The CMB is isotropic ( same in all directions ) to 2 parts in 10 000. You would start seeing deviations from 2.70 K after the 4th decimal place.

Tell it to bodybuilders/powerlifters, marathon runners or Olympic sprinters .

Let me clarify what the CMB is. The universe started off very hot. For a couple of hundred thousand years, the radiation that permeated the whole universe was hot enough that, if an electron were to attach to a proton ( hydrogen nucleus ) or a Helium nucleus, a gamma, or x, ray would soon come along and hit it with enough energy to cause it to escape. The whole universe was permeated by this plasma, where Hydrogen and Helium nuclei, as well as electrons, are kept from combining in this sea of high energy radiation. This is like conditions on the Sun, where temperatures keep elements in a plasma state, and atoms dissociated; you cannot see through plasma, the glow of scattering makes it opaque. But the universe kept expanding and cooling ( according to gas laws ), and at a certain point ( about 30000 K, temperature of last scattering ), the radiation was cool enough that it could no longer knock electrons loose, after they formed an atom. The glow of the plasma stopped, and the universe became transparent because radiation was no longer scattered, but free to travel to any observer ( even future ones like us ). Over the last 13 1/2 billion years, the universe has expanded by about a factor of 1040 times, and cooled by the same factor ( again according to gas laws ), which means that we would expect to see the afterglow of that plasma radiation about 1040 times cooler ( see Gamow ), and sure enough, but purely accidentally, two Bell Labs employees detected this much weaker afterglow ( see Penzias and Wilson ) at 2.70 K. That is the farthest we can see back in time electromagnetically, as before that the universe was opaque, and, we see it in all directions because it permeated the whole universe. Actually it was 'heard' in all directions because it is shifted to 1040 times longer wavelength/ lower frequency, by a square horn antenna in the 50s.

Sports are not necessarily about competition. You can get exercise by hiking, running or working out. I, myself, have never liked organized competitive sports. I joined my first gym when I was 16, and am in reasonably good shape for my age. I also remember being outside during all my evenings and Summers as a kid; you don't see that too much these days.

I don't understand what you are after, at all. Maybe you should work on your question posing skills. If you are at all unsure of what a term means, don't use it in your question. Or maybe keep it really simple, ask only one question, like "What does this term mean ? " I'm almost afraid to answer ( what I think ) your question, because you don't seem to understand people's responses, and go in all other directions. The function you are considering F(x) =x2 is NOT equivalent to x/x ( which is equivalent to 1 ), it is actually equivalent to x*x ( x times x, if you don't know what the little star means ). the x is a variable, which means it takes the place of any one number, just like the x axis on a graph has all the numbers on that axis.

I can see that replacing emergency generators, INow. Electricity is already expensive enough for people on fixed incomes; the financial burden of buying a battery ( and replacing it every so often ) might be better tackled by the 'sharing' of expenses by a community; a large scale community battery ( or means of power storage ), instead of distributed, home batteries. I know that sounds like Socialism, so you might not like it ( haha tables are turned ), but that is a way to even the load ( financial, not electrical ) between those who can afford a home battery, and those who can't, and may have to go without power.