Strange

And at least one person did suggest building a demonstration device.

! Moderator Note Please read the rules for this section of the forum, particularly the need to provide evidence. Also you need to present your idea here, not just provide a link.

Multiple levels are difficult to manage and (in current logic technologies) use more power. However, flash memories use multiple levels of charge to store 2 or more bits per cell. This gives greater storage density at the cost of reduced speed

Did you report those threads?

As it is not true, I'm not sure why you would be impressed. If this really were some groundbreaking new invention, then discussing it with people before protecting your rights would be extremely foolish. Of course it isn't censorship. The information (what little of it there was) is still there. The OP is free to tell people about his invention but chooses not to.

Do you have any evidence for this? Also, people hold a wide variety of beliefs and opinions so I doubt that has a significant effect.

! Moderator Note As you are apparently not interested in discussion, this rant is closed.

That makes no sense. Biology and evolution are scientific disciplines so, even if some people’s research is influenced by their beliefs, the evidence and peer review will not be.

I might not go as far as "arrogant jerk" but I don't think his views on religion are worth listening to. He should stick to the subjects he knows (biology and evolution).

Of course. Take a right-angle triangle with two sides equal to 1; the length of the hypotenuse is irrational. You are confusing two different words. The word "irrational" with reference to numbers means a number that cannot be expressed as a fraction. This is not really related to the concept of rational thought. A plank of wood? The rest of your post is so incoherent it doesn't deserve an answer.

Well, there is no doubt about evolution. It occurs. This has been known for thousands of years. What you are asking about is the theory of evolution: ie. the explanation of how it occurs. I will have to take your word for that. I am not interested in reading his book. I doubt that very much. He is (was) a working biologist.

If you are not prepared to explain something about your idea then why would anyone bother to sign an NDA? So why not publish it in your own language?

As Dagl1 also said, it is not completely random: some areas of the genome are more stable than others. But, yes, the source of variation in the genome is effectively random. A few changes are useful, a few are damaging and most have no great effect. But this may change if the environment changes; which is why a population with greater genetic diversity is more able to cope with environmental changes. Also multiple changes over time may have no effect until one particular change is able to make all the others have a significant effect. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "which is possible, but is not a certainty". What is not a certainty?

This is wrong. The mutations that occur are not dictated by the environment - the environment may cause more mutations (eg. radiation, toxins, etc) but will not control whether they are favourable or not. It is selection that "chooses" the mutations that are beneficial or selects against those that are harmful (eg if a mutation produces more hair, then that may aid survival in a cold environment. Or it may hinder survival in a warm environment). You seem to be using the deck of cards analogy to imply that no information can be added by shuffling. It doesn't work like that. A deck of cards is not a very good example because each card just represents one value. A library full of books that get copied is a better example. A spelling error made when a book is copied could change a word from having one meaning to another. Or copying could duplicate a word, or a sentence, or an entire book. Possibly with some errors. Or one of the copyists could forget a book. Or leave out a sentence or a word (imagine if the word "not" got deleted from a sentence - it would completely change the meaning). How does a single celled organism go from not being light sensitive to being light sensitive? This could be a single mutation that changes a protein so that it responds to light.

As we are discussing fiction, I think the OP can make up whatever rules they want.

Build one. Sell the power. Make lots of money. And then people will listen to you.

I have made the changes you mention. I changed this to "co-moving" which, I think is the correct term. (Sorry I have nothing more constructive to add!)

Because you invented the rule.

! Moderator Note You were told to stop opening threads on this subject

No scientific theory is ever “confirmed as true” There are experiments using atomic clocks, not light clocks (aren’t light clocks used only in thought experiments?) As some who has been involved in the development of GPS systems, I can assure you that this is bollocks. GPS has to take into effect Doppler (which is large do the receivers have to search for the signal) and GR to account for relative speed and gravitational potential. This is different for every satellite and not accounted for by the “factory offset” Key word being “apparent”

This doesn't answer your question, but you might find it interesting: https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-short-guide-to-hard-problems-20180716/

There is no such thing. Not likely. There could be some examples to use in school lessons on logical fallacies, critical thinking, etc. So you can't be bothered to read it but you think it is wrong. Arrogance or naivety, I'm not sure. How about you give us some examples of this "bad science" and maybe we can tell you whether it is something you have failed to understand or, perhaps, something that Darwin got wrong but we know have a better understanding of. And, of course, a lot more has been explained since Wallace and Darwin's work. But there is a lot more to understand. That doesn't make Creationism any more credible.

Citation needed!

I have always thought this was the case (based on no real evidence!) - it seemed natural to me that religion would be adapted to serve the state as power became more centralised