Strange

Perhaps both in equal measure. I really wish every popular science article would include a disclaimer to say that it describes is a series of approximate analogies and that they should not be taken too literally (and certainly shouldn't be used as the basis of "new theories").

You could tell that object B is moving even without defining a coordinate system. But that isn't really relevant. You do need to define the coordinate system of A and B in order to make any measurements. Asking if there "really is" a 4D space-time is a question for philosophy, not science. We model the world using that concept and it gives us the right answers. That is all you can ask science to do. Are you quoting something from Wikipedia? If so, please make clear what you are quoting and where from. Which notions? And there is no absolute space and time.

Each type of force or interaction depends on a type of "charge" or property of the particles involved. In the case of the electromagnetic force, that is the electric charge. In the case of the strong force, it is the colour "charge" of quarks. In the case of the weak nuclear force, it is the "flavour" of the quarks (up, down, top, bottom, strange, charm). As such it allows quarks to change flavour which is one of the causes of nuclear decay. In all cases, the interaction is mediated by bosons: photons, gluons and W/Z bosons, respectively.

If you measure the distance between those distant galaxies, they are closer together than galaxies today. In the meantime, the universe has been expanding, carrying those galaxies (and the light from them) away from us. So they might have been a billion light years away when the light was emitted and are now 10s of billions of light years away. According to your source, 13.8 billion years ago (long before there were any galaxies). Against your intuition, maybe.

I think the legal definition of "being in charge of a motor vehicle" in the UK is that the key is in the ignition (even if the engine isn't running).

There was a recent case of a woman who was arrested for taking a bite out of an apple while stopped at a red light. So, although people do it, it is frowned upon.

There will be a repulsive force because they all have an electric charge, but this is much weaker than the strong force binding them together (hence the name!)

The strong force is what holds quarks together inside protons and neutrons. It is mediated by (virtual) gluons and is defined in terms of the "colour charge" of quarks and gluons. A proportion of the strong force "leaks" out of protons and neutrons and acts to old those particles together in the neutron. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction#Behavior_of_the_strong_force

Interesting question. There is (of course) no single source. Some of the sources I am aware of are ... The main way that science is disseminated is via papers and letters to (peer reviewed) journals. Scientists and journalists read the journals relevant to their fields. Journalists then write articles about the things they think are most interesting or significant. Journal access normally depends on a subscription but you can find pre-prints of many papers on Arxiv. Several journals also have blogs/websites where they post news about interesting developments. Research institutions (universities, labs, etc) publish news about the work being done at their sites. Many scientists also blog, write articles and tweet about their work. (I follow CERN and some cosmologists and other scientists on Twitter.) Some are also active on forums such as this one and post about interesting developments they have come across.

There are tools called "Internet Search Engines". Google is one of the best known. Lets see what it turns up about vaccines, for example: Polio: http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/polio/en/ Ebola: http://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/ebola-vaccine-provides-protection-and-hope-for-high-risk-communities-in-the-democratic-republic-of-the-congo HIV: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-44738642 Diabetes: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/research/research-round-up/research-spotlight/research-spotlight-a-vaccine-for-type-1-diabetes I will leave you to complete the apparently daunting task of doing a google search for the other diseases combined with the word "cure". (You probably also need to learn a little bit about how vaccines work and why they are not relevant to every possible malady.)

You seem to be suggesting that there are electrons or other negative charges inside a proton. This is, of course, like almost everything you post, complete drivel.

I thought anyone with a vague interest in the subject would be familiar with the multiple lines of evidence for the evolution of the universe from an early hot, dense state. For example: https://www.space.com/40370-why-should-we-believe-big-bang.html https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/astro/cosmos/bigbang/bb_evid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence For example: https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093

The evidence shows that you are wrong. We don't really know that there was such an original "point". By using General Relativity alone, you can extrapolate back and get to a singularity at t=0. But there is little reason to think that represents reality. None of our current theories can go back that far. Some attempts to include quantum theory in the model result in the universe being infinitely old.

Why do you keep posting such ridiculous nonsense?

Things don't "move through time" in relativity. And, in particular, "points" don't move at all. A "point" is coordinate in space. In relativity, you need to consider the space-time coordinates of objects or observers (that may be moving relative to one another). That doesn't really make any sense. Points are defined with reference to a coordinate system (think of a sheet of graph paper, for example) which will have an origin (0,0) with all other points having non-zero coordinates (x,y). In reality, you need to deal with the (x,y,z,t) coordinates of each event. The Lorentz transform then gives us a way of converting between those coordinates measured by observer A to those measured by observer B in relative motion (x',y',z',t'). If A and B are in relative motion, then there is no "same time". They don't exists at the same point (or at least, not for long if they are in relative motion). And, "0,0" is not a spacetime coordinate, it is a 2D coordinate. It is far more likely that you simply don't understand it. You might find the following useful: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/special-relativity#minkowski-spacetime https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-20-introduction-to-special-relativity-january-iap-2005/

Get a glass of water and so me salt. Pour them on the floor. Watch in amazement as the salt completely fails to suck up the water. Are you concerned at all about polluting the land so nothing will grow? Nonsense.

That is a consequence of the underlying concept of describing things in terms of wavefunctions.

Not necessarily. There are works credited to Homer, but there is no evidence he existed. The thread is about the historical reality of Jesus.

Many people wrote it. Even people who are fairly sure Jesus existed don't think he wrote any of it (as far as I know).

Why have you posted that here? I would recommend that no one downloads this, other other zip files with unknown contents from unknown sources.

The question was about the existence of a historical figure corresponding to the Jesus of the Bible. You seem to be arguing that he must have existed because the Bible says so. That is not really very compelling(for the reasons that others have pointed out and you are studiously ignoring).

There is little or no evidence for that.

FFS: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=download+all+india+pincode+list+xls First result: https://data.gov.in/catalog/all-india-pincode-directory Next time you want to ask a question, just go to google instead.

If you type "anagram" into Google it says "Did you mean: nag a ram"

That's not concentric. Or you are I knew exactly what he meant. His questions may be stupid but they are usually unambiguous. What does that mean? The people on the inner wheel would not be having as much fun though (their ride would shorter and not as high). Why not just two wheels side by side? Or make it spin much faster to increase the throughput?