Strange

No. It is probably just an indication that our theories are incomplete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning

What phenomena? What tests would you perform? And what (quantitatively) do you expect the results to be?

I don't believe you. If you are doing this, then why can't you show us? Show us how you do this, because you are obviously getting the wrong answer.

Yes.

Please show your calculations. No you are not. You are just making up conclusions based on nothing at all. Please provide a reference. As it appears you can neither support your guesses with any mathematics, not provide any credible sources supporting what you say, I am going to suggest the mods close this thread as it is not about science. Some people just don't know what they don't know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Why? Show the mathematics from special relativity that predicts the wire will get shorter. (Spoiler: there isn't any.) You are just making stuff up again. Nope. You are making stuff up and then pretending it is based on relativity. This is just silly.

That is true; for "inanimate" hot objects (like computer processors) is is, I think, the only effect. I suppose the relative effectiveness of that vs cooling by evaporation for human bodies depends on temperature, humidity and various other factors.

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. What Markus was saying is that gravitational waves have some superficial similarities to other waves, but are completely different. There are some analogies between (Newtonian) gravity and EM, but they only hold in limited cases. There are far more differences than similarities.

BTW, one of the world's more bizarre superstitions is the belief in Korea that if you use a fan in a closed room YOU WILL DIE!!!!

c is the speed of light in a vacuum. I'm not sure what instances you are referring to. The speed of light in a medium, maybe?

It is because our skin is damp and the movement of the air speeds evaporation from the surface. There is probably also an effect where we are surrounded by a layer of air warmed by our bodies, so a fan can replace that with cooler air (unless the ambient temperature is higher than body temp).

One potential problem is that even if the basic biochemistry was the same, their molecules could have the opposite chirality (handedness) - this would make things like proteins inaccessible to us and possibly even toxic.

No one said it was going to be easy!

Either the universe is infinite (answer A) or it is finite bout unbounded (answer C). I am not aware of anything that could support answer B; it would require some sort of barrier to stop the matter in the universe filling that "void". It is hard to see how it could do (even if your outer region were full of super-dense neutronium). Because, as noted, gravity doesn't work that way. But also because (unless I am very confused, which is entirely possible!) the rate of expansion is less at greater distance from us. The acceleration started relatively recently so it is nearer (later) galaxies that show an increased expansion rate. It appears to be a constant, non-zero energy density present in otherwise empty space. The challenge is how this relates (if it does) to the known non-zero energy of the vacuum (which appears to be many orders of magnitude too large).

I have no idea what you mean, because you didn't;t say. So I gave you my interpretation of what a big question is. Feel free to enlighten us as to what you think the big questions are. Yep. So what point were you trying to make by posting a synopsis by a brain dead beat writer on some unknown website?

But the basis for your beliefs are indistinguishable. As is the certainty with which you cling to them. By "smart" you mean people who agree with you?

Duh. Obviously. I guess it depends what you consider the "big questions" to be. Ones that can be answered by faith or fantasy are not, in my opinion, "big questions". I would have thought the big questions are the ones that can improve lives, provide greater health, wealth and opportunity for people. These can't be answered using "the gut" (ie making stuff up). They demand something more rigorous and evidence based. Of course not. Because it is a religious belief. I wouldn't expect anyone or any evidence to change that. I am fairly unusual on this forum in that I don't care about religion at all; I don't care what you or other people believe. What I will argue against is religious extremists either twisting facts or logic based their beliefs, or trying to do harm to people because of their faith (eg arguing against vaccination, climate change, education, etc) So I don't care if you believe that the Flat Earth is in the Centre of the Universe supported on the back of a Giant Turtle. You can believe whatever crazy shit you like. Just don't try and justify it by pretending there is science behind it. But that is so bizarre: on the one hand, you criticise science and say it doesn't have the answer while on the other you grab any bit of science you can twist to support your faith and say "See, science!". This is new level of cognitive dissonance.

Don't worry, that lack of understanding is common to many other religious people. It comes from relying too much on personal opinion, blind faith and ignorance. It is mildly annoying (and very sad) that people are proud to be so ignorant, but it can't actually stop the progress brought about by science. Because, as noted, science WORKS. (Which is why it is not like religion.) "I was lucky enough to remain ignorant". FIFY Being "genuine" doesn't compensate for your thoughts being ignorant, faith-based and wrong. Maybe you need to find a forum where you will get a better reception. One that is not populated by smart people. A Creationist forum perhaps. Or the Flat Earth society - your approach has a lot in common. And I'm sure that the the Geocentrists have their own forum. You might have to get used to being attacked for not being religious enough, but that might be a pleasant change for you!

"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

The scientific method is used because IT WORKS, not because people have some sort of blind faith. It is tested and changed over time. This is almost the exact opposite of your faith-based approach. But it is absolutely expected that the religious will, ignorantly, accuse science of being a religion. We hear it all the time from people who share your beliefs, from Creationists and various other fundamentalists.

I doubt it. I imagine there are a whole bunch of reasons for people doing science. I suppose a lot of people, whatever their work, would like their contributions to be recognised. And I guess many scientists would like to make a paradigm-changing discovery (*). Which is why the claims of "dogma" in science are so moronic. (*) If I had been a scientist, I would have been the one doing the same experiment for my entire career just to improve the accuracy of the results.And getting absolutely no credit at all!

So much FAIL in one sentence. You do an amazing job, with every post, of demonstrating that you don't have a clue. Expansion was predicted (ie explained) years before it was first observed. Expansion does not have a "velocity", however the rate of expansion is determined by the density of mass-energy in the universe. We have far more evidence than just redshift data.

WTF does that gibberish mean? You seem to have degenerated from unsupported beliefs to some sort of aphasia.

The irony of this from a religious person is unbelievable. Someone described science as the process of being continuously wrong. (Almost the exact opposite of your rigid faith-based beliefs.) Funny how people who say this are usually really narrow minded and convinced of their own beliefs. And the typical arrogance of the crackpot and True Believer.

*cough* religion *cough*