Strange

There are some interesting comments about the difference between "race" and "ethnicity" here: https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-03-02.htm

Define “race”... (and “physically superior”) There is a group/tribe who have adapted to freediving: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43823885 This is a good article that looks at why so many great marathon runners come from Kenya. It explains the difficulties in looking at questions like this. There have been some scientific studies which suggest there could be a genetic component. But it is hard to separate this from cultural effects (although many of the ideas around this are based on Western myths about Africa) https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/why-kenyans-make-such-great-runners-a-story-of-genes-and-cultures/256015/

I just did. That isn’t the question you asked. Maybe you should read the OP again.

What? Short term memory loss? If you have no evidence why are you making these claims? I would be interested to see the statistical analysis you have done and what you did to eliminate confounding factors

Almost certain nay not. 1. There is no evidence for the differences you claim 2. There is not enough time for “selective breeding”

Or one can define it as "people who like to talk about the same things that I do"

And yet we have an existing theory that can. Your ideas are to vague for anyone to do that.

OK. So what does it really mean. (Using math would be nice ...)

You made this up. Density refers to the amount of "stuff" in a given volume. How can there be different amounts of space in space? It's nonsense.

Did anyone say that? Very few things are genetically determined. A few diseases maybe. I'm not aware of any characteristics of personality that are determined by genetics. They can produce an increased tendency to certain types of thought or behaviour. For example, there is a genetic component to psychopathic behaviour but not everyone with the corresponding genes becomes a psychopath: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/ Because even traits that are much more valuable don't necessarily spread through all of the population uniformly. And in many cases there are trade-offs that mean that restrict the spread (for example, in countries with malaria not everybody has sickle cell disease). So, let's say that religiosity has some social benefit, say social cohesion (*). But it is possible that a lack of religiosity also has a benefit, perhaps a more practical or analytical approach to problem solving. Then in a population, there will be situations where one of those is more useful than the other. Overall, then, we would expect evolution to produce some sort of reasonably optimal mix of character types in the population, depending on what challenges it has had to face. (*) There are all sorts of other reasons it might exist. For example, it could just be a side effect of our need to find patterns in nature (important for identifying edible vs dangerous plants and animals) and our imagination and story telling capabilities (which in turn, could be just a. side effect of some other brain function).

There was a book, and an article in Scientific American, about this a few years ago. It varies between a few hundred years for some things to millions of years for others: http://ogoapes.weebly.com/uploads/3/2/3/9/3239894/an_earth_without_people.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Without_Us This more recent article on the anthropocene might be of interest too: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-leave-a-telltale-residue-on-earth1/ Or, approaching it from the other end, a couple of scientists looked at what evidence we would expect to see if there had been an advanced civilisation millions of years ago: https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03748

As there isn't any sort of objective definition, this is probably the thing that most people will latch onto as a defining characteristic.

Only when it is caused by the Doppler effect. Er, no it isn't. It is nothing to do with the Doppler effect. Not sure why you think that is odd. They are both waves. If you move towards the source, for example, you will encounter peaks of the waveform more frequently. In other words the waveform will appear to be shorter meaning higher pitch or bluer light. Citation needed. (I could point out some of the obvious reasons why this can't be true. But I would rather see what dodgy source Itoero is relying on.)

Maybe, if you can’t see the difference it means you don’t need a second coat

Indeed. This sort of casual stereotyping is just as bad, and even more pervasive, than explicit “don’t want them in my street/town/country” racism.

Do you have any evidence this is the case? I think there are probably two main factors here. One would be media stereotyping: so black people in TV series and movies usually get the roles as sports people or criminals or "the muscle". Similarly, the media talks more about black sportspeople than it does black academics or artists or ... The other one is a social effect that in countries like the USA, black people and other minorities are often poorer than the average with fewer opportunities open to them. One route to success that is open to them is sports and so if there is a larger proportion successful black athletes (and I have no idea if this is true) that could be a factor.

What an insufferably smug comment. This was recorded in an autobiography. The author went on to say, "The fact, of course, is that any of one’s friends who was incapable of a little intermingling of these condiments would soon be consigned to the home for dull dogs." ( Haud Immemor: Reminiscences of Legal and Social Life in Edinburgh and London 1850-1900 by Charles Stewart, William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh and London.) I have done one that was published in a popular science magazine called Omni many years ago. And I have done a couple of online ones since (the latter prompted by discussions like this). The results varied enormously although all seemed implausibly high. I think they were designed (like Mensa) to stroke the egos of those taking them. They all included questions which were tests of language and general knowledge rather than intelligence (and hence would obviously be age and culture specific). Also, for many of the "choose the correct pattern" type questions there seemed to be equally plausible reasons for any of the choices.

You say you accept GR etc but the expansion in the Big Bang model does not involve a “force”. In fact, it is what happens in the absence of force. There is masses of evidence for the Big Bang model (theories are never proved) and no ne at all for yours. So I know which I accept.

Irrelevant. The current model is based on the idea that the entire universe is (and always has been) uniformly full of matter. A universe with matter exploding from a central point would behave very differently. Apart from the fact it would not be homogeneous and isotropic (as we observe) it is not clear that it would expand as you claim (expansion depends on a uniform distribution of matter).

The two immediately obvious ones are: You say there is a void outside the universe You describe matter exploding from a central point into empty space.

It contradicts several aspects of the current model. And I don’t see what it adds.

Well, it could certainly be stretched (locally) by an external mass. But you have no evidence that is happening, or that any such exyernal mass exists (or even that there is an “outside”). It is all just fantasy. And you are not able to make any testable (ie quantified) predictions What is wrong with the current model: it is based on theory and is supported by multiple lines of evidence. What is the advantage of trying to replace this with domething that has no basis in theory or evidence?

Gravity doesn’t work like that (see shell theorem). So this is a force you have invented.

Nonsense.

So which of the known forces are you talking about? It can’t be the strong or weak nuclear force (too short range). It can’t be electromagnetic (matter is neutral). So that leaves gravity. What can be pulling from outside? (And how is that compatible with Newton’s shell theorem?) And there is no such thing as pushing gravity. So these forces don’t seem to be any of the known forces. So I have to assume you have made them up. At what distance will this be measurable? And how large is the difference? (In other words, why haven’t we seen it yet?)