Strange

I have wasted many hours and hundreds of words trying to explain why your repeated statements of what you believe do not constitute a rational argument; ie. there is no "reasoning" involved. Similarly, what you claim as "evidence" are simply things that you believe to be true. The whole point about evidence (whether in science or a court of law) is that it must be persuasive to others. Simply stating things you believe is not evidence and not persuasive to others. You refuse to understand and/or acknowledge these explanations (your only responses is to to simply re-itereate what you believe with no justification) and so I gave up. You are clearly too arrogant to consider any other points of view but your own. This, no doubt, also explains the offensive bigotry you have displayed in other threads - which doesn't make you a re great example of "people of faith".

No one ever claimed that any scientific theory is a "complete model of realty". So this is yet another fallacious argument ("straw man" if you want to look it up).

They have. But you have just ignored them Or are incapable of understanding them. Blinded by your faith (or arrogance), perhaps. Ignoring everyone who points out your errors doesn't magically make you right.

If you ever posted anything meaningful you might get a meaningful response ...

As you obviously can't break the law of conservation of energy, you have equally obviously made an error in your description or your calculations. As you are either too lazy or too stupid to find your own mistakes, why should anyone here help you?

What is the point? You have created an example that is so complicated that (1) you are not able to find your mistake and (2) you are unable to explain it to anyone else so they can find your mistake (if you were able to explain it, you would probably find the error). I suspect the error is because you are making all sorts of physically impossible assumptions and so your example is meaningless. But I dont know and I don’t care (and I doubt anyone else does). Energy IS conserved so your broken example is pointless. So, again, what is the point of this thread? Shall we just ask the mods to close it as a a waste of everyone’s time?

Also, the heart is muscle, so neither skin nor blood cells have much in common with the heart.

It might surprise you to know that you do not get an interference pattern with ball bearings.

That is the reality (or as close as science ever gets). That covers quite a range of views. Do you have any specific comments on it.

Stop ignoring explanations.

Well, I guess you want your talk to end with some drama so I would end with spagghettification. It may be worth noting that this is actually just an extreme form of the tidal forces that raise sea levels on opposite sides of the Earth (and lower them in between. So we are constantly being a tiny bit spagghettified by the Moon. It is just that a black hole can take this to a whole new level!

You are still focussing on the behaviour of single atoms being excited by a photon. There are other mechanisms. The energy of the photon is enough to cause the chlorophyll molecule to lose an electron - it is this free electron that starts the chain of reactions that make up photosynthesis. The chlorophyll molecule eventually gets its electron back from another source (when a water molecule is split by another molecule). The chlorophyll molecule doesn't release a photon when it gets its electron back and so there is a net absorption of red/violet photons. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis#Light-dependent_reactions

I can't even begin to imagine what Germans make of this...

It is a bit worrying when even you don't know what the terms in your equation stand for! What is "spin influence"? And how is it quantified?

Generally pretty good. There are a few bits that are potentially confusing or misleading... Heavy is an odd word to use (heavy is how we describe weight - i.e. the effect of gravity on mass). But then again, it is hard to think of a better word. Dense would be even more wrong! I guess what you want to say is something about a large amount of mass in a small volume.... It is not clear what the Schwarzschild radius refers to in this sentence. It reads as though it is the singularity, but that has zero size. So, I guess it is the "tipping point" that is the S. radius but that isn't clear from the sentence. The more massive you make the object. One of the counter-intuitive things about a black hole is that the average density decreases as they get more massive. (Because the radius is proportional to the mass, the volume is proportional to mass cubed. Therefore density decreases as mass squared.) The Schwarzschild radius depends only on the mass, not how much you compress it. The S.radius of an Earth mass black hole is just under 1 cm, which is a bit bigger than a peanut! There is a handy calculator for these things here: http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/ Again,this depends on the size of the black hole. For small black holes you might be torn apart before you reach the event horizon. For very large black holes you would hardly notice anything until after you have passed the event horizon. Well, it can. We just don't know if it is correct or not! http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html

Yes. For example, the theory of evolution by natural selection is (in the general principles) "certain" (as in your definition). The important point is that it is in principle falsifiable and so it still counts as a theory. The fact that it would require something close to divine intervention to falsify it at this stage means we can be certain beyond any reasonable doubt that the theory is correct. (Of course, "certainty" is not a binary property; it is a spectrum.)

Yes. I didn't say they were. Surprisingly, yes. Well, the expression of those genes, anyway.

Who is? Why have you brought this up again? It isn't relevant and only detracts from your idea. There is no evidence it does, so I wouldn't worry about it. So every particle has a corresponding black hole? That's a lot of black holes. So there must be even more matter in that other universe. But then the particles in that universe must come from black holes in yet another universe, which must be even bigger. And so on ad infinitum. Is that really what you mean. Hang on ... that's the Big Bang model that you said you didn't accept Another concept that you have borrowed from the results of an existing theory that you disagree with ...

No, I meant the mathematics that you alluded to. Please show in appropriate detail that this produces the expected interference effect.

Yes. But I don't know that is relevant. No one is claiming Lamarckian inheritance. You were the one who brought it up, apparently as a straw man argument. (Although, we know that experiences during an organisms lifetime can affect gene expression in at least the next generation. So maybe he wasn't completely wrong....) And I provided two. Which were ignored. Bu there you go.

Come on then. Show us what happens.

To make it look more like a "well". Otherwise, it looks more like a mountain! Where does the negative energy come from? (If the sum is zero, there must be an equal negative quantity)

Sounds like some work by Jarry. He describes a time machine, which some have interpreted as a description of a bicycle. He also wrote an essay describing the Crucifixion as a bicycle race: http://evergreenreview.com/read/the-crucifixion-considered-as-an-uphill-bicycle-race/

The spin of an electron has the values + or - 1/2. So there are only two points on your curve. And what do you mean by "energy"? The energy of the particle? Meaning kinetic energy or mass? Neither of which are related to spin. So far, your idea doesn't seem to bear much similarity to reality.

I'm not sure why you think this is so implausible. Far more complex behaviours are inherited. Evolving the ability to avoid predators would clearly be advantageous and therefore selected for. However, it looks like there is (as is often the case) both an inherited and an environmental component. They have evolved the ability to learn fear of predators but need exposure/training to actually express this behaviour. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-predators-study/fear-of-predators-is-not-naturalstudy-idUSN2136840820070621 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bd96/173020c76cdc78fbab30f70a89aa93aeac15.pdf