Strange

I'm not sure why you would expect to be shown why, when you appear to be talking about something unknowable (the nature of "reality" - whatever that means). I'm not sure why your opinion/guess is any more valid than someone else's. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that if the "ultimate nature of reality" is unknowable, then we deal with the reality we can know, which includes width, length, height and time. That is how science works. Your view is more like philosophy and, while potentially interesting, is of little practical value.

I am curious how you know this (and with such certainty) when you appear to be talking about an ideal reality that, well, we cannot know...

And that space doesn't have height, width or length? And the movement doesn't take any time?

Suely it is the other way round. The length of the second is fixed (some number of blah blah cesium blah) and the length of the day and year are varied to keep instep with nature (leap seconds, leap years, etc).

And yet ... the posts in this thread, for example, are ordered by date and time. That doesn't rely on memory.

Although, that might be seen as a disadvantage in some contexts.

It is possible (and it is done). The best protection is to be careful about websites visited, software downloaded, etc. and possibly use some sort of anti-virus or other security software. The last line of defense is to cover the lens (I have a black sticky label over mine).

Let's just say I don't necessarily agree. It is an interesting problem and I would need to see more detail. For example, if you are talking about orbiting at 0.86c then, as noted above, you cannot simply use length contraction from special relativity.

Really? Do they?

And, of course, before that many millions of people had seen rainbows. Anyway, it just shows that the website is wrong about that detail (as it is about everything else). I don't know why the fact he was a priest is relevant. This is wrong in so many ways. Of course solar cells contain chemicals. Mainly silicon with small amounts of "dopants" in carefully controlled amounts. The way they work is well explained by current theory (which is how we are are able to design them in the first place). The vague and wildly-inaccurate ideas on that website would not allow someone to create a solar cell - it depends on them having already been created by current theory. Also, batteries are entirely chemical storage devices. Whether it is lead-acid or NiMH, charging the cell causes chemical changes which can be reversed to generate electric current. Not really my area, but it looks like the same sort of inaccurate and unsupported claims as the rest of the web site. For example, "photosynthesis is simply the expanding of the number of Carbon Atoms within a structure" is just not true. Maybe someone else can do a more detailed critique, but as far as I can see it falls in the class of "not even wrong". I have just looked at the section on light. It looks very familiar. Is this your father's work, by any chance?

There is a difference between interpretations and theories. There are many different interpretations of quantum theory (Copenhagen, Many Worlds, etc) but they are just different ways of describing the same theory. Therefore there is (as far as I know) no experiment that could distinguish them. If it could, they wouldn't be interpretations but different theories.

I skimmed through the website (I didn't see anything specifically about evolution). It is complete nonsense. So much so that it is hard to know where to begin pointing out the errors. Every page I looked at had unsupported claims and factual errors. For example on the page about energy, it says: Which is just not true. We know very well how solar panels work, and they work by converting energy from one form (electromagnetic radiation) to another (electric current). If that energy is then stored in a battery, it is converted to another form (chemical energy). There are similar factual errors on every page. Plus a lot of stuff that is just made up. There is no evidence to support any of the claims. Just another pseudoscientific crank. And another clanger: No, that would have been Isaac Newton a couple of centuries earlier.

I assume you are referring to EPR; an attempt to show that the theory was inconsistent and therefore wrong? The idea of hidden variables was never consistent with theory. This was proved by Bell. And this was later confirmed by experiment.

I don't fully understand what you are saying however, yes, the circumference (as measured by an observer on the disk) is 2πrγ. I'm not sure what you mean by "become a partial disk". The disk is still a complete disk, but the geometry is no longer Euclidean.

You said this before ("As predicted by one of the competing sub-theories ..."). Can you explain what you mean. As far as I am aware, there is only one standard theory. It is confirmed with depressing regularity - it would be much more exciting if someone found a big hole. (Which is not to say that there are not still some questions and unknown - neutrino mass, for example - but when it comes to basic things like entanglement or the uncertainty principle, I am not aware of any conflict.) But, obviously, like any scientific theory, it will be adjusted (or even replaced) as new evidence comes to light. But you seem to imply that it is in more of a state of flux than it appears to me. I don't agree. I haven't yet seen an experimental result that contradicts theory.

Quite the reverse. As that Wikipedia page says, "For physically reasonable materials, during the spin-up phase a real disk expands radially due to centrifugal forces." But note that the relationship between the radius and the circumference will no longer be the Euclidean 2π (due to the curvature of spacetime that swansont mentioned).

There are computer programs to prove theorems and to generate new theorems. The trouble is, nearly all the theorems the generated are of no real significance. For example: http://theorymine.co.uk/ p.s. Sorry, mathematic, I accidentally down-voted your answer (and there doesn't seem to be any way to undo it)...

This is the "Ehrenfest Paradox" - note that, like all so-called paradoxes in physics, it only appears to be a paradox. A full analysis is pretty complicated and requires taking the properties of real materials into account as well as general relativity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox

The article you linked to says: So it may be that with the more accurate data provided by Planck, the "evidence" has gone away.

I heard her talking about this a while ago. It was very interesting, but I felt she was rather overstating the strength of the evidence (caveat: I am not an expert in any of the relevant fields!) Because it still speculative and few other scientists agree with her interpretation of the evidence. Or, in some case, that the evidence even exists.

"Entaglement" in English. I don't think anything about it is unclear. Every experiment done to test some aspect of it has behaved exactly as predicted by theory. It may be counter-intuiitive, but so are many things in science (even Newton's laws of motion would have been counter-intuitive to the anceient Greeks).

I think your audience should be the judge of that. (It isn't. And you're not.) The quality of the writing matches the quality of the argument, if that helps.

So what. You don't know anything about the reaction so your opinion doesn't really carry much weight. Except that isn't how a battery works.

Because you need a closed circuit. The battery works by a reaction taking place at both electrodes. This can only happen if they are part of the same electric circuit.

I don't think you are in any position to say something like that as you appear to have no understanding of theory. Current will only flow when there is a complete circuit from one terminal of the battery to the other.