Strange

It is evidence that people have the experiences. That is all. It is not evidence of afterlife or anything else. The most likely explanation is just biochemical activity in the brain. This is supported by the fact that people have similar experiences where near-death is not involved (drugs, brain damage, illness, etc.) Why are you even posting your ignorant drivel on a science forum. Scientists look at evidence. Your are just repeating the nonsense you read in a holy book or that some man in a silly hat told you. Grow up. Learn to think. Dreams are equally vivid. As are hallucinations caused by disease or drugs.

Follow your ignorant and primitive traditions without thought. Be proud of your ignorance. But they are not your opinions, they are just the ones you have been indoctrinated with. You are not capable of thinking for yourself. I'm not sure why you are on a science forum. You have no interest in knowledge or thinking.

No you would be moving along with Earth's orbit (around the Sun). Even if your initial direction was "backwards" along the Earth's orbit, because you are going around the Earth after 12 hours you would be going "forwards" along the Earth's orbit. Apart from the amount of fuel you would need! There is the ISS you could call in on. But it would be rushing past at about 17,000 mph so that might be a bit tricky. (That is the problem with going straight up and not trying to change your lateral speed.) Stationary relative to what? This might be helpful: https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/

It is easy for any reasonable person to see that you only think this because you are following what you have been told, like a sheep unable to think for yourself.

Being “loyal”, and blindly following a culture or religion even when it is wrong, is not honourable. It is stupid and shameful. The sheep are those who follow tradition without thinking or being brave enough to challenge it. Using “culture” to defend evil ideas is a sign of cowardice.

The only way to introduce these complex ideas is to simplify them. Even students of science get taught simpler models first! In some cases people will be satisfied with the simplified explanation. Others will look for a bit more detail and some will be inspired to go study it seriously. All those outcomes are good. I do wish that there were some sort of standard disclaimer pointing out that the explanation is simplified, that the analogies are inexact, the math is complex, etc. It might reduce the number of people who come here to point out the “obvious” flaw in relativity!

I think all John was correcting you on was the use of “simple” as a flat adverb, rather than “simply”. I wouldn’t do that in my dialect of English, but it may be standard in others. It may have been less generally accepted than it is now. But we need people like Einstein (and Podoldky & Rosen) to “poke” at theories in order to test them. Perhaps if EPR hadn’t pointed out the apparent paradox, Bell wouldn’t have come up with his theorem and others wouldn’t have found ways to test it. So the mavericks either make existing theory stronger or, occasionally, replace it.

So are special and general relativity. What is your point? Are you saying relativity is wrong? Do you have a better model? So, in some cases you can reduce a problem to two dimensions. But not always. For example: Inverse square law, Schwarzschild metric, frame dragging, inspiralling black holes and gravitational waves, ... So still not seeing your point.

Or he could have been repeating the quotation from memory and just got it wrong. But it doesn’t really matter, does it. I don’t think he ever admitted he was wrong about quantum theory, though.

Bismuth does create amazing crystal structures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismuth#Physical_characteristics But I have no idea what the OP is about

I think there is a difference between "not right" and "wrong", though. For example, the phlogiston theory was definitely wrong. On the other hand, while Newtonian gravity is not "right" it is still a good enough approximation for many uses. And that is also probably true of GR; we are pretty sure that the infinities in black holes are not physically realistic.

Thank you. This is just an algebraic re-arrangement of the usual relationships. It lacks the clarity of the usual format, so I'm not sure what the point is. How does this relate to your claims of a new theory and a "mechanism" for relativity? Why do you think these geometric relationships are better than those used in SR? You still haven't answered: What is the significance/meaning of the circles and their intersection points? What is "a"?

Oh, and why would they have evolved to be more aggressive towards the cubs (that don't carry their genes)? Could it perhaps be that evolution has found that the male lion's genes can be more efficiently propagated if he doesn't;t waste his energy on cubs that carry someone else's genes but, instead, kills them and quickly produces some cubs to reproduce his own genes. Did anyone say that they "know" this? Of course they don't.

Ah, I see. It extends beyond the intersection point. What is the significance or meaning of this line? In fact, perhaps you could explain the meaning of the circles as well? And the meaning of "f"? And "a"? And then show how you derive the Lorentz transform from this diagram.

The mass estimates for the galaxy include dark matter. The text makes this clear and unambiguous in two ways: It says that the mass estimates are based on measuring orbital velocities and includes phrases like "Because the orbital velocity depends on the total mass inside the orbital radius" or "a measurement of the radial velocity of halo stars found that the mass enclosed within 80 kiloparsecs is 7×1011 M☉". It has an estimate for the mass of stars which is an order of magnitude less than the total mass (because it doesn't include the dark matter): "The total mass of all the stars in the Milky Way is estimated to be between 4.6×1010 M☉[53] and 6.43×1010 M☉.[6] " You can confirm that the estimates include dark matter by reading the referenced papers, which make it clear that these masses include DM. So you seem to have undermined your claim that dark matter is not necessary.

Can you explain what the circles represent and what defines their intersection points? Or is it just the rhombus that is relevant? That's not possible. The side and the line to the midpoint are the hypotenuse and one side of a right angle triangle. The hypotenuse is longer than both sides, so the line to the centre cannot be c. Do you really mean constant or do you mean invariant? Because if you are saying that c is invariant, then you end up with SR - there is no other possibility. And if you are saying that c is not invariant, then experiment proves you wrong.

I’m sure there will be some claiming that this attack was arranged by Soros or something.

You can’t blame me when you still haven’t explained what “a” is, what “acceleration factor” is, or what the circles represent. You claim to have an alternative theory but refuse to say what it is. You said you have evidence but won’t say what it is. It is your “secrecy” that is the problem. I am not a mind reader so you need to explain what is in your head. I asked you that. You have refused to explain. This is your claim so it is up to you to explain it.

Similar in the UK where the government, press and assorted right-wing extremists (Farage, Yaxley-Lennon, various American imports such as Bannon) have pretty much normalised hate speech. This has led to various people being verbally and physically abused on the streets. It is a good job there is not easy access to guns, or it could be much worse. Unbelievably, Farage was hosting a radio program asking "why the rise in anti-semitism". The irony (and lack of self-awareness) is incredible.

Not sure what you mean. But if you only change your vertical speed, then the speed you are orbiting at will be the speed your are moving at the surface of the Earth. Orbital speed, [math]v = \sqrt{\frac{G M}{r}}[/math] So, the distance is given by [math]r = \frac{G M}{v^2}[/math] If you take off from the equator your "sideways" (orbital) speed will be about 1,000 mph. This means the distance you would need to be in order to orbit at this speed is about 1.2 million miles: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(G+*+mass+of+Earth)+%2F+(1000+mph)^2+in+miles

Yes, you have already said that. Place how? What is proportional to v? What is "acceleration factor"? And how does it result from v? What is "a"? What is the difference between "wrong" and "invalid"? It gets the right results and so it is a valid and correct theory. Once again, that explains nothing. How can energy be a "mechanism"? What roles does energy play in your theory? c2 is not energy. What rhombus? How? -1 for being totally obtuse and refusing to explain anything. (We already have geometrical representations of Lorentz transformations. Because it is a geometrical theory. Geometry is the "mechanism" if you like.)

It is not clear how. You might need to explain it. Do you mean constant c or invariant c? What is f? What is a? Then what is your point? You started off claiming that SR is wrong. That is what SR does. But what do you mean by "mechanism"? What is the mechanism you are providing? What is this theory? Why are you unable to explain anything? (-1 for being unnecessarily cryptic and difficult.)

Why don't you then. But before you do that: What is the meaning of these two circles? What is 'a'? What is 'f'? What is 'v'? What is 'c'? You appear to have labelled two different length lines as 'c' - why is that? what is the relation between a, f, c, v and the Lorentz transform? No evidence that SR is wrong then? Not surprising.

I’m afraid I find the scientific explanation more plausible than your “they’re just really aggressive” hypothesis.