Strange

I meant your cloud chamber is irrelevant. And is kinetic energy the most important factor when it comes to mutagenesis? (I have no idea.) Anyway. Enough of this sidetrack. The causes of mutations (where radioactivity plays a minor part) is really not very relevant to the OP's questions.

Which is irrelevant. (I know you are obsessed with cloud chambers as the answer to everything, and you bring them up in nearly every thread.) From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_gateway/radiation/radioisotopesrev1.shtml So cosmic rays account for about 12% of background radiation (depending where you are, of course).

1. That doesn't really mean anything. And there is no real science behind it. It sounds like a journalistic extrapolation from what we know. 2. This is a hypothesis based on theoretical ideas for which there is zero evidence. So not worth worrying about at the moment. 3. This was thought to be likely (because of gravity) until it was found that the rate of expansion is accelerating. As for "not believing the big bang", that is a rather silly thing to say. Science is not about belief but about what the evidence shows or, more accurately, which models work best. Currently, the Big Bang model is the best model we have for the evolution of the universe. It is supported by overwhelming evidence so it seems unlikely to be completely wrong. However, there are still many unknowns and possible variations on the basic model so the details may change as we discover more. I think those are useful questions, but I'm not sure that they can ever be answered. Or at least, not fully. So choosing an answer might be down to personal preference.Or there might be different answers for different laws. It may be that, in some cases, other laws (or different values for fundamental constants) make the existence of a universe (or at least one populated by intelligent organisms) impossible. For example, is seems that only a universe with 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension is stable: But then, I suppose, that just raises the question why the other combinations are not stable. And that is the problem with these sort of non-science questions. Any answer you get just prompts another level of "Yes, but why ..."

Cosmic rays are a small contribution to background radiation levels. And they don’t originate from the sun. I also don’t believe that radiation (apart from UV) is a significant cause of mutations. Especially not those that are relevant to evolution (ie in germ cells) But apart from that ...

You have a theory? I had no idea. Great. Can you tell me where I left my car keys? (And please don’t say, “in the corner”)

I find that twirling the frond spallator helps a lot in these cases.

Interesting (and plausible) hypothesis. I wonder if the OP will come back and confirm it.

That's a cute answer.

Don't be obtuse ...

everything is composed of matter What, even light? Also, there’s no such thing as anti-matter. And yet we observe it and even use it in industry and medicine. The rest of it becomes increasingly incoherent, making many assertions with no support. If this is "rational" then I am a teapot..

Are you going to defend this, even though you didn't write it? 1. What are the "loopholes" in the theory of relativity? 2. Do you [the author] understand the difference between (and the significance of) the speed of light in a vacuum being invariant, and the speed of light in a medium, which is not invariant (like anything else that moves with less than the speed of light)? 3. What are the "inaccuracies which have taken place in practically conducted experiments"? In summary, the paper has invented a non-existent problem to solve. A bit like asking if the speed of light is different if we paint the lab walls red instead of white.

Why do you think the rules don’t apply to you?

It seems bizarre to call measurements an abstraction. It is the only objective knowledge we have of the world. Science is rational and based on objective measurements. The rules require you to present your argument here, not just advertise your blog. Also, you have posted this in philosophy but, obviously, philosophy cannot “debunk” or disprove physics. Only objective evidence (measurements) can do that. Is this related to your other threads where you made a series of assertions that were either baseless or false (neither of which fits my definition of “rational”). And then you refused to engage in discussion, making these threads look like spam.

You need to start a new thread

OK. Sorry I asked.

Well you said “my theories”.

I will suggest the mods move this to the Speculations forum. Also note that you must present the idea here

No I don’t. I say that is a meaningless statement. You can comfort yourself that way instead of learning about relativity but it is a very silly attitude. Making up stuff that only makes sense to you is easy but a waste of time.

No. It is like saying you can’t drive car unless you know how to build one.

They are everywhere, all around us.

I have already explained why that is (a) wrong and (b) irrelevant. You would be better off learning the basics of the Big Bang model rather than wasting your time inventing nonsense like this.

Any comment on why 1867?

There is no boundary. Why are you making up nonsense like this? We can see it where we are. And so could an observer at every other location in the universe. I have suggested this be move to Speculations as you are no longer asking questions but promoting your own crackpot physics.

You have never seen the legendary TimeCube? I think the original website is long gone, but someone may get have archived it somewhere. It was a long, incoherent and multicoloured rant about there being two days in every 24 hours and loads of conspiracy theories. It is almost unique in the level of deranged nuttiness. X-posted with Janus!

Not bad. But not up to TimeCube standards. You only managed to sound confused, not completely deranged. Better luck next time.