Strange

I don't need to explain anything. We use the Gregorian calendar. You said the Gregorian calendar does not exist. Therefore you are wrong. That is a matter of fact. Your conspiracy theories and mountains of incoherent word salad don't change that. Yes. Not as absurd as the drivel you have posted, but pretty daft. It is fairly typical of the sort of thing written by people who think they are very clever because they are good at one thing and then learn a little bit about something else. (See also various Nobel laureates...) Sadly, it seems he is.

No I am not. Please don't lie. You are the only person who has mentioned heliocentrism. It is called the Gregorian calendar. Therefore everything from your first sentence has been false.

But I am NOT talking about geocentric years. I am talking about calendars. Let me try that again more slowly and loudly for you. I AM TALKING ABOUT C A L E N D A R S. The CALENDAR year 1900 had 365 days. Therefore it was the Gregorian CALENDAR. You know, the one that you claim doesn't exist. I have no idea why you bring this up but I would recommend that you keep your piles of excrement in separate threads and don't try to mix them.

You are missing the point. I know you find it hard to understand what you read so let me try again. I will type more slowly so you can keep up. This calendar year is called (for fairly arbitrary reasons) 2019. This calendar year has 365 days in it from the day we call January the 1st to December 31st. 119 calendar years ago there was a calendar year that we called 1900. That calendar year had 365 days in it, as well. This is about calendar years; in other words you can go out and buy a calendar for 2019 and count the little boxes to see how many days it has (you might need a grown unto help you). You can also get a calendar for the year we called 1900. And you can count the days in that year. There were 365 of them. That piece of paper won't magically change if you utter the magic phrase "heliocentricus geocentrum!!!" So, the simple fact that the calendar year 1900 had 365 days in shows that it is a GREGORIAN calendar. (If it had been a Julian calendar it would have had 366 days because 1900 is divisible by 4.) I'm sure you will try to wave this fact aware with more incoherent gibberish. But I can't help you beyond that. Not his insane droolings on fake history.

You've got me thinking now. I have seen coins and many other artefacts from China, and many other other countries, that date back before 1000AD (thousands of years before in some case). There is a LOT of this stuff. There must have been an enormous industry in 1000AD to create all these forged artefacts, transport them around the world and bury them in ways that recreate a false prehistory. Why is there no evidence of this massive manufacturing and distribution enterprise? And who paid for it all? And why? And what were people doing before 1000 that had to be hidden with all these forgeries?

Correct. Therefore it is a Gregorian calendar. Otherwise it would have had 366 days. It didn't and therefore your opening sentence (and pretty much everything after it, is nonsense). Fomenko is another crackpot, so anything supported by quoting him is, by definition, wrong. Or is that what all this is based on? You fell for Fomenko's lies and BS and now you are trying to delude others? I didn't release it was a cult. Or is it a contagion?

Nope. I am dealing with the calendar year 1900. It has exactly 365 days. What you are doing with it is ... how can I put this politely? Odd. No one intelligent wants to find out more about the crackpot ideas of flat earth's. You do know that light doesn't always travel in straight lines, don't you? (Actually, perhaps you don't. You don't seem fully acquainted with reality.)

And they still appear on contemporary maps. What does that prove?

Nope. 1900 was not a leap year. There is documentary evidence of that fact. It can't be changed by heliocentric. Is this serious? Or a bizarre attempt at satire? Either way, I am going to suggest this thread is closed: it has no science and an increasingly shaky basis in reality.

I originally assumed that as well. Actually it is in another galaxy, M87. Which just makes it even more impressive! https://eventhorizontelescope.org

When you are cold, the body has to generate more heat, not less. So if anything you should feel more active so that you will warm yourself up.

I have no idea whether you have managed to prove that or not. I doubt it (given the innacurcay of the rest of the information in your post). I'm not going to try and wade through the incoherent, rambling nonsense to find out. "Heliocentric or geocentric context" are irrelevant. It is a calendar. Get one for 1900 (you could probably find one on eBay) and you will see that 1900 was not a leap year. That is a historical fact and is not changed by geocentrism. And you are unable to understand it. Yes:the "obstacle" the thing in between A and B. A and B are pulled together by the force of gravity. They exert pressure on the obstacle. But I don't know why you are dragging arguments against Newtonian gravity into this. How is it relevant? This is very obviously wrong for a great many reasons. It was rejected hundreds of years ago (but maybe that means last week in your parallel universe). But if you want to embarrass yourself further, feel free to start a thread on it. "Thriving city"? You can tell that from a. small red blob, can you? Do you actually think no one knew how to make panes of glass before then? Sheesh. The Romans made sheets of glass from at least the beginning of the first century. I was being polite.

There was at least one Star Trek episode (Darmok) where the universal translator failed because, even hough it could translate the words that were spoken, no one could understand the translation. The Tamarians communicate entirely in quotations and references to mythology, so when one of them says something that is translated as "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra" no one knows what it means.

! Moderator Note Closed pending moderator discussion

Sssshhhh! Please provide evidence that this is "the most accurate astronomical dating tool at our disposal". This might be a challenge because it is not an astronomical dating tool. It is used calculates the date of Easter, which is set by convention not by the movement of celestial bodies.

Both great films!

No I'm not. (I don't even know that that gibberish is supposed to mean). I am just pointing out the historical fact that 1900 was not a leap year and therefore we are now using the Gregorian calendar. The Julian calendar had 1 leap day every four years. Our current calendar does not. Therefore your claim that "Gregorian calendar reform never occurred in 1582 AD" is false. The rest of your post is increasingly deranged and incoherent, but ends with this joke: You have missed April Fools day by more than a week. Are you trying to drag some sort of insane theory of "push gravity" into this as well now? You clearly have severe problems understanding what you read. That paragraph does not say that the two bodies are pushed towards each other. It says that the fact that they are pulling on each other will result on pressure on an object in between them. Try lying on the floor with a large rock on top of you: you will experience pressure as the Earth and and the rock pull on each other. Unless you can make a clear (one or two sentence) statement of the purpose of this thread I will request that it is closed.

It is not clear what you are attempting to prove. But you can't disprove historical facts (1900 was not a leap year) using mathematics.

The problem is, in both of these examples, you already have the unknown language and a translation into a known language. But humans all learn a language from scratch, knowing nothing about it. The way babies learn is by doing a statistical analysis of sounds to identify morphemes, and then a statistical analysis of how and when those morphemes are used to associate meaning with them. Which implies that, given time, an AI system could learn a completely new language from scratch and then act as a translator of that language. But it might take two years of intense exposure to the new environment. Thinking about it, that may not be completely true. There may be built in assumptions about what it is possible for a language to be like, which reduces the "search space". It isn't clear that a human baby would pick up an alien language based on completely different concepts for encoding and transmitting information. I suspect linguists would be among the scientists who are most excited if we ever meet an alien race!

What? The Gregorian calendar was adopted by Spain, Portugal, France, Poland, Italy, Catholic Low Countries, Luxemburg, and some others in 1582. It has since been adopted by most countries, most recently Turkey in 1926. If you were right, 1900 would have been a leap year (it wasn't) and today's date would be the 28th March. ! Moderator Note This clearly does not belong in Mathematics. We don't have a History section, but as you start off by asserting that historical facts are untrue, I have moved it to Speculations. Please note that this requires you to provide evidence to support your claims. Specifically, you need to provide documentary evidence that the Gregorian calendar reform never happened.

Do you have any evidence for this? I would guess it could be due to the relative efficiency of various metabolic processes at higher temperature. Or maybe the difficulty of dissipating heat means that the body's natural response is to slow down in oder to control body temperature - it makes us feel tired to stop us generating more heat. Just found this, which confirms my latter guess: https://www.livescience.com/60116-why-heat-makes-you-feel-tired.html

I don't see why. I am pointing out why it is irrelevant. You need to show that: This effect exists It is large enough to have a measurable effect on the experiment It is different for each arm of the interferometer (why would it be?) It changes differently in each arm with the rotation of the Earth and/or its orbit round the Sun (why would it?) Can you do that? Unless you can do all of those, then it seems that the experiment is successfully confirming that the movement of the apparatus does not change the measured speed of light. Your statements so far suggest that you don't understand how the Michelson-Morely experiment was performed, nor what it was measuring.

No idea. I am guessing it would take a supercomputer and hours of simulation to answer that!

Newton's law for gravity is an approximation that works in most cases. In the example you give, the ball will cross the event horizon at the speed of light (and this is true whether you drop it or throw it). I haven't looked at your calculations yet, but you probably need to use the relativistic equation for acceleration (because velocities do not add linearly, as we approximate at low speeds, because of time dilation and length contraction). I don't think you have to use the full GR equations. EDIT: just skimmed through your word doc, and I am fairly sure that assuming velocities can be added is the source of your error. I notice you start talking about Planck lengths and times. I don't know why that would be relevant. You define c in terms of Planck length and time, but the Planck length and time are already defined in terms of c! Also, the Planck length is not "the smallest distance possible" (this is a common misconception). But you then introduce time dilation and length contraction (which you omitted in your first calculation). And that is (presumably - still only skimming through it, I'm afraid!) why you now get the right answer. Nothing to do with Planck lengths; everything to do with relativity!

I suppose it is possible (but probably unlikely) that a star could collide with a black hole head on. I guess that would be pretty quick!