Strange

Why not? Can you (a) show mathematically how relativity allows for this and (b) derive relativity from this (in mathematical detail) How can something move towards itself? I don’t see how this explains mass-energy equivalence. Please show the mathematics. Simultaneity is relative, not nonexistent. But if there is no such thing as simultaneity, then there is no universal now. Which is what you disagreed with initially. Another assertion with no theoretical basis or evidence.

By being bosons.

Except that your results are wrong, because you haven't taken relativity into account. Quite.

Meanwhile the unicorn dance orchestra played and pigs flew across the sky.

When I worked in a university (in the UK) 100% of the female engineering students were from overseas and nearly all of them from Islamic countries.

I was just thinking of the three spatial coordinates. Nothing more than that.

That is not a very rational argument. There are an infinite number of integers before 0. And yet we are able to start counting from 0. Because your argument makes no sense? When you say "there are only two options" I am duty bound to point out that there are others. Even if you don't like them. (And even if I don't believe them.) But I don't know what point you are trying to make. You say it is impossible for the universe to be infinitely old. You say it cannot have come from nothing. And you say there are no other possibilities.(Sorry, if I have misunderstood/misremembered, the thread has been dead for a while.) So, by your "logic" the universe does not exist. Is that a good summary?

Apparently, he also had another type of fungus that you can peel the skin off in strips to use like sticking plasters: it sticks to itself so you can wrap it round your finger, for example, to create a sterile sealed covering. And I think it has antibacterial properties as well. I seem to remember that giant redwoods have fireproof bark and need to experience a forest fire before they can set seed. (Given how long they live, they have plenty of opportunities.) It make sense in evolutionary terms, because it clears away competing plants and provides a nice fertile base for the seeds to grow. (The seeds also need to be frozen during winter before they can germinate. Life is so complicated when you are a tree.)

The "western" countries have low birth rates BECAUSE of education, which leads to relative increases in health, wealth and good governance. Your friend is absolutely correct. But I'm not sure it is problem that needs a solution. The global birth rate has already fallen below the level needed to sustain the current population and so the population will fall. I think it is possible to feed to expected population, but this may require some changes to lifestyle (eating less meat, perhaps). It was pointed out by a Nobel-prize winning economist (whose name escapes me right now ...) that famine is a political problem, not one of agriculture. Which brings us back to the need for an educated population who can ensure that have good, effective, honest(*) governments. Watch some of Hans Rosling's videos on the changes in health and wealth in "third world" countries, why the population will keep growing for a few decades, etc. (*) Not completely corrupt, at least.

This is not a falsification of relativity. They all run at the same rate, from the satellite's frame of reference. But the GPS receiver has to take into account the differing relative velocity of each satellite - the clock of each satellite will appear different for this reason. Please provide some examples. (Real ones, not just based on your ignorance, as above.)

So that would three orthogonal number lines.

An infinite number of them!

Quarks and electrons and photons all have completely different properties but they are all elementary / fundamental particles and, hence, have no internal structure.

I sometimes hyphenate and sometimes not. (I usually avoid hyphens on the phone cos it takes more typing)

I don’t think it goes against evolution; the ability/need to believe (in something) seems to be a fundamental part of human nature.

That's about all I got out of it. Please try presenting your ideas in a more coherent and comprehensible fashion. Thank you.

There are people working on models like this, eg: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundance_Bilson-Thompson But, as swansont says, there is no evidence for this.

There are forums and websites specific to this hobby; google “conlang”

The charge of a particle is neither indeterminate nor relative. All composite particles have a charge of -1, 0 or +1. Only quarks have fractional charge.

We can’t be sure about anything; that is not how science works. But we can look at the available evidence and reach reasonable conclusions based on the balance of probabilities.

Does it? How do you know that?

Not always. The Japanese concept of kami, which is nearly always translated as "god", is definitely not like that. Other pantheistic religions have their own concepts of god which are very different from the Abrahamic idea.

They might be undetectable by current technology...

No. They are just words with different meanings. It isn't because of religion. You can choose to redefine them, but that isn't a very good basis for an argument.

Really? So if you are looking for your keys and someone says, "they are on the table" you would never give up looking because the absence of evidence of them on the table is not enough to convince you that they are not there? But maybe gods are different than keys. And certainly, the search space of the universe is greater than a table top. But we have looked very hard and there are precious few places left for these gods to be hidden. Even if they are very small and powerless; https://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-evidence-against-god_b_682169.html