Strange

Except ... it isn't true: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=((radius+moon%2B+radius+Earth)%2Fradius+Earth)^2 If you choose from enough possible numbers and you allow things to be "close" to any arbitrarily chosen number, then you can "prove" anything. You can probably find Beyonce's birthday in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid. Or, at least, another day in the same month. Or maybe the same day in a nearby month. Or something. The same is true for your "nearly 1000" example. You can probable find the value of pi "encoded" in the planets if you look at enough different diameters, masses, orbits, ... You will find it eventually. Well, something close definitely. OK, you might have to multiply it by something or take the square root. But you will certainly find something that has some loose connection to pi. Or maybe e. Or the speed of light. Or something, anything! Like all numerologists, you don't understand how arbitrary you are being in your choice of numbers and the range of errors you allow. So you can't see how meaningless your results are. Because you are only doing this to support something you already believe (I may have said that before. A few hundred times.) Any normal person who doesn't already believe this will just see that you are being ridiculous and not "proving" anything. At its kindest, this is an example of apophenia. More realistically, delusional thinking.

Nope: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cos(90º%2F+pi)+%3D+2%2Fsqrt(5) cos(90º/pi) = 0.877582 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cos(90º%2F+pi) 2 / sqrt(5) = 0.894427 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2%2Fsqrt(5) That is behind a paywall: http://www.ceser.in/ceserp/index.php/ijmc/article/view/4674/0 But a calculator will show that you are wrong.

I'm not sure. It does say, for example, "Antipredator traits are no longer maintained by natural selection and may be lost." So their assumption is that the traits are due to evolution and are lost by evolution. If this is the case then this is still NOT an example of "de-evolution" or "reverse evolution". It would just be an example of evolution: there are costs to maintaining the aversion and so if there is nothing to select them, then they will be lost. However, it is not clear if they ave actually confirmed that the traits are lost because of evolution or because the young are no longer trained to be averse.

Here is a plot: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y+%3D+-1+%2Fx^2 This is infinitely deep and, as you say, approaches zero at infinity. What is y in this graph? I assume x is distance from the particle? What does this mean? What is the size of the particle? How does this relate to the value of the curve at infinity? Does the size of the particle depend on distance? That is easy to answer: what value of spin does it have? Don't bring irrelevant nonsense like your belief in the steady state universe into the discussion as it is likely to cause unwanted distractions.

Don’t tempt me! (But +1 for ... openness?)

On the other hand, I have seen a couple of people say that they started off studying GR and/or QM because they had their own pet theory they wanted to develop. In one case, they realised (after about 10 years study) that it was not going to work (but carried on studying anyway). Another said that after 20 or 30 years study, they were still holding off until they had learned enough to develop their idea.

Quarks are much more complicated than electrons; they not only have (electric) charge but also color charge. They are involved in electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions. What I find bizarre is that you are picking some concepts from quantum theory (such as the concept of spin, the existence of class of particles call fermions and bosons) and then reject quantum theory in favour of some ideas of your own. You should be starting from the beginning and predicting the existence of fermions and bosons, instead of taking them as givens.

And how long he has been working on it...

Also known as "lying"

Interesting idea. It would be nice if there was an automatic test! One problem is highlighted by a recent example, where there were multiple misconceptions in the opening paragraph but then the poster rambled on in a deranged manner for hundreds, possibly thousands, of words - it was a real wall of words. So their overall crack value would have been quite low, but most of the text wasn't right or wrong (it was beyond "not even wrong" and out the other side).

There are two really intuitive approaches to mass (and sorry if they seem rather obvious): One is inertia, or resistance to movement. This is captured by Newton's f=ma; in other words, if an object has more mass then we have to use correspondingly more force to accelerate it by the same amount. The other is what we perceive as "weight"; ie. the amount that something responds to gravity. Newton (again!) described this as a force between things that was proportional to their masses (in a similar way to the force between objects with a electric charge). He didn't attempt to say what the cause of this force was. Einstein described this as the effect of mass (or energy, or a few other things) on the geometry of space and time. The interesting thing is that these two concepts of mass are equivalent. The heavier something is, the harder it is to move. It's not really clear why this should be the case (but, ultimately, it isn't clear why mass or electric charge or anything else is the way it is). But their equivalence led Einstein to point out that acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable: if you were in a sealed room, you would not be able to tell if you were on the Earth'ssurface or accelerating through empty space at 1g. The other links and videos will give more background on that.

Good non-technical intro the the Higgs mechanism here (with links to more technical material): https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-higgs-faq-2-0/ There might be of interest as well: Why the Higgs and Gravity are Unrelated: https://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/ Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

The shape of galaxies is determined by their history (how old they are, how many collisions and mergers they have experienced, etc). The central black hole is such a tiny component I doubt it has much significant impact on the overall structure. Simulations of the formation of galaxy structures have to include dark matter (because it dominates the mass) but don't need to include black holes. The same Higgs mechanism that gives all the other particles mass. I haven't seen a good description of the Higgs mechanism that isn't deeply mathematical. The analogies are generally so crude as to be useless and misleading. There is some discussion here, which might be of interest: Science isn't about what "really exists". We currently have two, very different, models of gravity. They both work (in most circumstances). Which one represents reality? Maybe neither. It doesn't matter. I wouldn't make any such conclusion. Mass and energy, as you say, are different things. What about potential energy; is that moving? It is not just potential energy. When converting between mass and energy (whether conceptually, or literally as in annihilation or creation of particle pairs) then all forms of energy, including kinetic energy for example, need to be accounted for.

Irrelevant. All the components are already living. Although it is hard to define what separates living from non-living (eg. viruses and prions are somewhere in the grey area) defining life as being energy, dilutes the meaning to such an extent that the word becomes useless. Here: "Attraction, caused by energy and gravity ..." If the total mass-energy of the universe has always existed then it is conserved (ignoring the fact that energy conservation is not easy to define on cosmological scales). You are misusing the word "logical" there. Wrong. There seems little point in this discussion if you are just going to make up new meanings for words.

It is not clear how an "object" is defined and why it is relevant. We know how black holes behave (according to current theory). It's the same thing. Er, yes we do: by interacting with the Higgs field. Having mass is part of the definition of matter. Exactly.

Nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

The people would jump on it as a better theory than the present ones. And there's the problem. Of course. That is why people look for better theories. The trouble is that people like you with their own personable (untested and untestable) theories insist they should be given the same level of respect as proper scientific models. But you have just explained why that is not (and cannot be) the case.

I'm sure we would. With some increase in brightness, perhaps. I wonder if it would be linear in the number of atoms...

I just read a bit more than title and ... it is total insane drivel. Not Time-Cube level stuff but totally f-ing bonkers.

Snap!

Or a test of gullibility... Here is a neat demonstration of that: https://gizmodo.com/361390/1301-florescent-bulbs-lit-solely-by-magnetic-fields (Although you shouldn't try this yourself as, technically, it is theft.)

You could try the tan function (or tan^2 to get an even faster change).

I guess the size of the dot is going to be limited (in how small it is) by the resolution of the camera sensor (it can't be less than one pixel) and by the JPEG encoding (and then by scaling effects and your monitor and ...)

The 2D triangle is a mathematical construct or abstraction. When you draw one with a pencil, it is a 3D representation of that abstract concept.

You seem to be treating these as independent observables. Which is obviously nonsense. You can't observe "motion" you only observe matter moving. So there is only a single fundamental observable (in your world). And what about all the other properties of matter that we could observe? Why do you ignore those? This is a philosophical argument. It has nothing to do with physics. In physics they are properties that can be observed and measured and are used to build scientific theories. It makes no difference whether they "exist" or not, whether you call them "things" or not. Ah yes, the old "I must be right because people keep forcefully pointing out my errors" argument. Are you going to compare yourself to Galileo next?