Strange

OK. That wasn't clear from your description. Get rid of the trampoline and the first rock. Just throw rocks out the back of the platform. The platform will move forward. This is the basic principle behind a rocket.

There has been a century of testing of quantum theory. It has been confirmed in all experiments. That is slightly more convincing than your baseless claim that it is wrong. Who is "they"? And why does the universe have to "seem to make sense"? Any unified field theory will still have to be quantised. (Otherwise it will be inconsistent with experimental evidence; in other words, it won't match reality.)

You can't.

The whole reason that the photon model was adopted was because the evidence forced it. This started with a solution to the black body problem, confirmed by Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect and many, many experiments since. You can say "science is wrong" but without evidence, this has no value.

Firstly, the "flatness" of the universe is not like the Earth being slightly flattened by its rotation. It is a description of the geometry of the universe (for example, that all the angles in a. triangle add to exactly 180°). Second, the universe is extremely flat. It is perfectly flat, within the limits of our measurements. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/103-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/geometry-of-space-time/606-how-can-the-universe-be-flat-we-re-3d-beginner Not me! (BTW that result about the bias in the spin of galaxies has not been confirmed [or refuted] so I wouldn't put too much faith in it yet.)

Because: "there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum." Or, to put it another way: "there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum." Or, you could say: "there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum." Momentum is conserved, no matter how many rocks you throw. You could fire a machine gun at the (bullet proof) trampoline. Or, more safely, a large piece of absorbent material. It would make no difference to the momentum of the system. The only way to change the momentum of the system is either to apply energy from outside (eg. a solar sail) or allow something to leave the system (eg. a rocket). We already know that the first rock make no difference, so we can ignore it. That just leaves the second rock. But we already know that a single rock makes no difference. So, to go back to the answer: no. Why? Because there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum. Please tell me which part of that sentence you don't understand.

That seems implausible, if it is just a mathematical transformation to a different form.

No

You are replying to someone who hasn’t been on the forum for 11 years. So don’t expect an immediate response

If that is a quotation, please provide the source.

That is not how science works. Aether theory was rejected because it was contradicted by evidence. String theory will be rejected if it is contradicted by evidence. Until then, it is a useful model.

That is not a very good analogy. Because I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. The aether theory was disproved by evidence (because science). String theory has not been disproved.

It certainly does. I haven't personally had to deal with anyone with problems that bad. Although I did have someone on the team who set fire to his apartment on a regular basis. I used to work with a guy who was convinced that our manager (and "others") was spying on him and breaking into his apartment to steal secrets. He was fine and perfectly nice otherwise. The only thing that worried me slightly was that he was in charge of the radioactive isotopes. Another guy (at the same place) had a girlfriend who no one ever met. And who turned out to be a famous singer. I suspect the "girlfriend" part was entirely in his imagination. Really nice guy. But one day he just stopped coming to work. I never did find out what happened to him.

why is it absurd? Can you show errors in the mathematics?

As photons are indivisible (by definition) there can only be one point of impact per photon. You have an interference pattern in the second image. That will not happen if you record "which slit" information.

If you want to use GR to model the world, you need 4 dimensions. String theory needs 10 or more.

Thanks. I knew you were wrong. The very first sentence of that article is "Scientists have long found a possible link between anticholinergic drugs and an increased risk of dementia." So, you are WRONG to say that psychiatric medication causes dementia. Are you sure their lives weren't ruined by their mental health problems. Also, anecdotes are not evidence. You have already demonstrated that your opinions are worthless. Scientific evidence shows that psychiatric treatments (whether talking therapies, cognitive behavioural therapy, or medication) can help people. Society did fine without the ability to treat appendicitis, cancer, and viral diseases. So that is a pretty crap argument. Lots of people believe the Earth is flat. It doesn't mean it is.

No

As, of course, you know a "theory" is the best we get in science; a good theory is the closest science gets to a "fact". SO saying "just a theory" is a bit silly, it is like saying "is just almost certain". It didn't really take any time. Time dilation was an obvious result of measurements, and once Einstein provided a sound theoretical basis it was generally accepted. (Comparing yourself to Einstein is not a good look.) I don't know. That is why I ask. Talking about "walls" is very unusual terminology. So, by "front wall" you mean the scene with the slits. And the "back wall" is the photon detector? Photons are not matter. And the way we perceive matter has nothing to do with vibrations. And Tesla may have been a competent electrical engineer, but he also had a lot of crazy ideas which would never work. As you will know from the rules you read and agreed to when you joined, you need to present the necessary information on the forum. (If you haven't even read the rules ...)

Or you could just type it in to Wolfram Alpha

If you came here making religious claims, you would see a very different side to the forum! (BTW, you have probably hit the 5 post limit for the first day. You can post more tomorrow.)

I have seen someone say, "if the Bile and reality are in conflict, then it must be reality that is wrong." It seems Cullen has a similarly blinkered view. Do you stick to all the food rules in Leviticus? Do you think that thieves should have their hands cut off? Or maybe we should turn the other cheek and forgive them? Which bits of the bible do you believe and which do you discard?

Did anyone say that. I have no comment on any of his books, other than the one I have read (which was very good). I can criticise other things I have heard him say. (And, based on that, his attitude in general.)

! Moderator Note Moved to Homework Help. Note that this is homework help; people might help you solve a problem, but they are not going to give you the answer. So what have you attempted so far? Can you use a calculator?

The "truth" of science may always be found to be wrong. Therefore it isn't truth. As science never stops, it ill never find the "real truth". I am not defending religion, just rational argument. I don't believe scarce has, or can, disprove religion. It is outside the scope of science because "gods" are not objectively measurable or testable. Individual claims or stories might be disproved, but that doesn't prove that all religion is wrong. In the same way that finding one theory is wrong doesn't disprove all of science.