Strange

No, we can’t. It is possible that we are still in an unstable false vacuum, for example. The astrophysicist Katie Mack has written and talked about various ways the universe could end - if your want to look for more info

There is no evidence for a “starting point”. 1. There is no evidence for such an event 2. Even if that event occurred, there is no reason to think it is uncaused (although it might be) 3. There is no reason to think there is any intention behind this event (whether it is caused or uncaused) We observe uncaused events and there is no reason to think there is any intention behind them. In summary, you have made a baseless assertion with no evidence, theory or logic behind it.

Well..... Most of your body (by number of atoms) is hydrogen which came from the Big Bang - which is even cooler!

Better. Not great. Anyway, congratulations for actually trying to do an experiment. That is a lot more than many do. But you need to improve the quality of your experiments and descriptions. Also, you can’t jump from one experiment to thinking you have discovered something that no one has seen before and that contradicts known physics. That is not rational. Instead, the scientific approach is to ask yourself what has gone wrong. Some diagrams would help (to see where exactly you are measuring, for example). No you didn’t. You might have lowered the pressure by some unknown amount. You need to learn how to eliminate other causes. For example: How did you make sure you were measuring at the same distance? Did you make measurements at various distances and positions? Did you measure the distortion of the sheet metal caused by the lower pressure? Did you try different types of metals and non-metals? Did you try with the pump running but no vacuum? Did you try moving/rotating the pump? Can you think of 5 more things you could try to see if they affect the measurement?

You should change your user name to Johnny Wrong! Luckily we have science so we don’t have to rely on the ignorant opinions of some random guy on the internet.

Values of WHAT? WHAT ARE YOU MEASURING? WHERE? With this sort of vague waffle, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously. You need to give a precise description of what you are doing.

Difference of what? What were you measuring? (And where? And how? And what was the difference? And what is the measurement accuracy? How many times did you perform the measurement? How did it vary with pressure?) Does that mean that you didn’t measure the pressure? I doubt you had much of a vacuum with a piece of wood as a seal. What does “align atoms” mean? Which atoms were aligned? What were they aligned with? How do you know they were aligned? No.

Differences in what? I’m not sure you are going to get much vacuum with a piece of wood stuck to the end of the tube. How did you measure the pressure in the tube?

Can you explain what this means and how you did it? (Words not videos or puppet shows, please)

Harry Potter is a boy wizard - True or False?

Is it? I thought it was run by the British Royal Family (who we all know are alien lizard people) and the Illuminati.

There is no (significant) proper motion in cosmological red shift. For example: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 You can test this in a lab. It is how radar guns measure speed. Irrelevant. We are talking about cosmological red-shift. Do you have a reference that says it is cased by scattering, or did you make it up all by yourself? Apart from, say, Doppler red shift, gravitational redshift or cosmological red shift. You don't have to interact with a photon to change its properties. For example, the energy (wavelength) is observer dependent; just moving relative to it will change its properties. Well, it is a brave man who claims GR is wrong. What are you going to replace it with? I thought you might be referring to this. Sigh. If red shift was due to Compton scattering then it would cause blurring of images that we don't see. Also, the redshift would depend on the wavelength, which we don't see. And Compton scattering doesn't happen at all for low energy photons. Apart from that, if you claim that cosmological red shift is not due to the change in scale factor, then you need a new theory to explain all the other evidence (CMB, proportions of hydrogen and helium, etc)

You mean the spiral arms? These are formed by density waves which cause more star formation and hence the bright arms. There is no connection to dark matter or black holes. Then, unless you can find a reference to what you saw, this is pointless. I can assure you that it was NOT a black hole. There are no photos of black holes. Yes. After learning some science, you should learn to think. Good idea. Anyway, I'm going to ignore this ignorant drivel from now on.

Because I have read of studies done on the subject (and how they correlate with other things). This is not something I am hugely interested in so I can't immediately point you to anything, but the first google result was: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1386523. I'm sure you can find plenty more if you are interested. (But I am getting the impression you are just arguing for the sake of it, so I'll leave you to have your fun with others.)

No you don't. What are "sleeves of the galaxy"? Maybe it was a quasar. I can only guess. It was not a picture of a black hole. I think you should study some basic science instead of inventing nonsense like this.

Again, not the point. It is not about whether any particular individual has a particular belief or none, the question is where the "ability" to have that belief comes from. Studies have shown that there are is a variation of this in the population (which is one requirement for it being possibly selected for/against by evolution). Some people have a greater tendency to belief in religious/spiritual ideas than others. Some people (presumably those in the middle of this range) may go from believing in something to not believing or vice versa. Or may change their faith from one religion to another. I'm not sure whether it is genetics or psychology that you totally don't understand. (Or are you just making straw man arguments for fun?) If someone hears a new form of music and thinks "I like that" it isn't because a gene has turned on, even if the ability to appreciate music has a genetic component. I can only assume this is deliberately playing dumb.

There is no theoretical reason to think that black holes have any sort of structure. So not "most likely" at all. It is very hard to understand what you are saying, but you seem to be suggesting that particles leave the black hole. This is impossible. And this is certainly not the source of dark matter. No. What you find hard to accept is irrelevant. There are no photos of black holes, so I don't know what you are talking about. It is all wrong. It is just nonsense you have invented to fill the gaps in your knowledge. You would be better using your time to learn.

Religiosity is about the the degree to which people are likely to have religious beliefs (of any sort) not specific beliefs. No one is suggesting that there is a different genetic contribution to Christianity versus Buddhism, for example. The specific religious beliefs people have will be largely determined by the culture they grow up in, plus other aspects of their personality. So the spread of Mormonism is a cultural effect not an example of evolution. As an analogy, some people are very musical. Depending where (and when) they grow up this might be expressed as opera or rock and roll. The spread of western pop music round the world didn’t require a genetic change, it just “piggy backed” on the existing (genetic) interest in music. You are obviously a smart guy so I am surprised you put forward this argument.

So, you have done a lot of disagreeing so far but what do you think the reason for religiosity is?

What a surprise.

I would guess the main one still to be exploited is fusion.

I don't see much difference between the hypotheses that blue eyes, lighter skin, musical ability, religiosity, mathematical ability, etc. might have an advantage (and possibly also disadvantages). Good point. I don't know if people have studied how the different aspects (eg. belief in a fairly concrete or personal god versus some more abstract spiritualism) vary through the population (and what other characteristics they might correlate with).

But there are many traits, especially those which have only marginal benefits, that do not spread through the entire population. For example, blue eyes are more common the further north you go in Europe. This may be because there is some evolutionary advantage (or it may be a side effect of some other change, eg. lighter skin), but if so it hasn't eliminated brown eyes. There are a variety of traits in a population. Some people are more or less religious. Some are more or less artistic. Some are left or right handed. There may genetic and even evolutionary advantages (and disadvantages) to some of these. But they haven't become universal. To consider the opposite case, there are inherited disorders which cause serious disability or death and so should be selected against. But evolution has not eliminated them completely. To take your example of buying presents, it could be that acts like that strengthen familial (or clan) bonds and makes it more likely that people will aid the survival of others in their family/clan/tribe/nation... (No idea how one would go about gathering information for this)

I was simply pointing out that there are often multiple factors at play in evolution, which all get balanced out (such as in the prevalence of sickle cell disease in areas where malaria is endemic). It wasn’t intended to be “self congratulatory” (and I’m not sure why it would be taken that way). But if there is an evolutionary benefit to religiosity (and I don’t know if there is actually evidence for that) then there may also be evolutionary benefits to other personality types, including those that have lower religiosity. Another possibility is that there are both advantages and disadvantages to religiosity. Another is that has neither and is not selected for or against by evolution I’m sorry if you found that tentative hypothesis to be controversial. Perhaps you have some evidence for or against it? (I don’t, it was merely a suggestion)

That would be pretty depressing. I would try and get a job in a pharmaceutical, bio-tech or other life sciences company. This could be as a lab tech, as suggested above (which could lead on to doing interesting research work). Or there will be roles in sales, marketing, customer support and many others. Or journalism? Maybe look at some jobs websites to get some ideas, for example: https://jobs.newscientist.com/en-gb/jobs/life-sciences/