Strange

Searching online for this only shows results for this forum. Very bizarre. If it this is a real magic trick, then it seems that only people who visit this forum have experienced it!

No one said you did. What are these claimed correlations? So what? That doesn't make it science. Perhaps you are deluded. Nature can be your religion, I suppose. It makes as much sense as any other basis for religion. A kind of pantheism, perhaps. But how can a process or body of knowledge be a "language". That makes no sense. That is probably because you don't know anything about it. (I am puzzled how something can be both unclear and dogmatic, though.) That is not a scientific question. (Unless you define the word "nature" in some way that makes it testable.) That is easier. If it follows the scientific method; if it is basically developing testable ideas, then it counts as science. It is always true. That is the definition of zero. If it doesn't correspond to reality, then it isn't science. Or not good science, anyway.

1. Who was this man? 2. Did they ask for money? 3. Where did this take place? 4. Where did the cardamom seeds come from? (Who supplied them; you or the man?) 5. Chew the seeds, presumably? 6. Why did you have these things with you?

It is very obviously a magic trick. Perhaps you can supply some details. 1. Who performed this trick? 2. Did they ask for money? 3. Where did it take place? 4. Who provided the jar, water, seeds, paper? 5. If you provided these, why did you have them? 6. Was the jar made of glass or plastic? 1. Who was this "priest"? (How did you come to meet them? What do they claim to be a "priest" of?) 2. Did they ask for money? 3. Where did it take place? 4. Why did you have a jar with you? 5. Who provided the water, seeds, paper? 6. If you provided these, why did you have them?

Which is no doubt easier if you don't fully understand the thing that you are distorting to make it fit ...

There may be chance involved, but it isn't random. (Maybe part of the problem with some creationist arguments is that they don't understand the difference?)

This is not a theory, in the scientific sense. That would require a mathematical model whose predictions have been shown to be consistent with multiple experiments. There is no such thing as "ether" (unless you are redefining this word, in which case you need to explain what you mean by it). What is "clean creative energy"? Energy is a property that things have. I don't understand how it can be either "clean" or "creative". What is "formulized information"? What does a "pure form" mean when applied to energy or information? What does a "evolved new form" mean when applied to energy or information? What does "trajectory of creation" mean? You have added a poll. Science is not a democratic system or popularity contest. (And we have the up/down vote system for people to let you know what they think of your posts! )

Do you know what "micro" means? 20 microarcseconds = 0.000020 arcseconds No, you need to use radians not degrees. 1 AU / 0.1 arcsec = 1 AU / 4.85x10-7 radians = 32.6 ly I have no idea where you get 0.1 ly from.

Your value for A is out by a factor of 10. And I don't know where the (3600) comes from. You are using 0.02 radians instead of 20 microarcseconds. So: A = 1.496 x 1011 metres (note: it is the radius not the diameter) θ = 20 microarcseconds = 20 x 10-6 * pi / 648,000 = 9.7 x 10-11 radians A/θ = 1.496 x 1011 metres / 9.7 x 10-11 radians = 163,018 light-years

There is a page on how parallax is calculated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax The relevant detail her: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax#Derivation If you still get 1 light-year, show us what you are doing and maybe we can see where you go wrong. But, if you don't actually want to do the math, you can get a computer to do it for you. Using the 20 microarcsecond resolution of Hubble: 1 au / tangent(20 microarcseconds) in light-years = 163,078 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+au+%2F+tangent(20+microarcseconds)+in+light-years

Show us how you work it out and maybe we can see where you went wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder#Parallax

I was just reading an article on direct collapse black holes (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-puzzle-of-the-first-black-holes/). One of the problems with supermassive black holes is how they could form. The idea here is that they form directly from the collapse of large cloud of gas (rather than from supernovae). They are then absorbed by a nearby galaxy. The energy released when the black hole absorbs material could heat up gas and affect star formation throughout the galaxy. So there may well be effects beyond just the gravity.

Correct. Yep. We absolutely don't need to worry abut that happening. It is just a nice example. Electric charge is the fundamental property. Individual particles (e.g. electrons) can have a charge. If that charged particle moves, this generates a magnetic field (this can be explained by special relativity, but we probably don't need to get into that). This all goes back to Faraday's experiments where he found that an electric current in a wire generates a magnetic field. And a changing magnetic field can generate an electric current in a wire. This was then turned into a mathematical description by Maxwell (and others) which is when it was realised that this described how changing electric and magnetic fields could generate a wave that travels through space. This turned out to be light. There is a big difference here. Friction will only oppose a force you apply. It isn't a force in itself. The force between two masses is, as swansont says, is equivalent to the force between two charges. You can think of them both as being caused by a "disturbance in the field" (in the first case the field is space-time, in the second it is the electromagnetic field). There are no particles involved in either case. (In quantum theory, the force is described in terms "virtual particles" but they are not really particles.) Getting out of your chair requires energy. But just sitting there doesn't. So energy is only expended when you lift yourself against gravity (i.e. add to your potential energy). The potential energy is given by m x g x h (mass of the rock times the acceleration due to gravity times the height you lift it). We are only ever concerned with differences in potential energy so if a hole opens up underneath you, that doesn't change the energy you have given it. There wouldn't be any! It would all cancel out. You would be close to a small amount of the shell on one side but there would be a larger amount of the shell on the other side pulling on you from further away. This all balances. Newton's Shell Theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem To be honest, I am not sure how electromagnetism works in curved space-time. So I will refrain from commenting further!

Finite means it can be counted or measured. Infinity means beyond that which can be counted or measured. That doesn't mean anything. You won't find it. Of course it can't. However many times you repeat this idiotic statement it still won't be true. Of course it doesn't.

This is a complete non-sequitur. It is impossible to have a coherent discussion with you. You just post random unconnected thoughts.

What evidence is there for this?

Yes, pretty much. At a rage enough scale, you can treat the galaxy as a fairly homogeneous cloud of "stuff". Although, there are different "layers" - the central bulge is spherical and has a different density distribution that the disk, etc.

That is true. But it is really just the total mass of the matter within a given orbital distance that matters. So, while it is true that the stars further out are held in place by the stars further in, the black hole doesn't really have a special role in this. Any distribution of the same mass would have the same effect.

Not sure what you are thinking of. The orbit of a star (the Sun, for example) around the galaxy is determined (largely) by the total mass inside its orbit. It doesn't matter much where that mass is or what form it takes (assuming it is roughly evenly distributed). So the black hole contributes some tiny fraction of that mass. But it would be exactly the same as if that same mass were in multiple stars spread out through the galaxy.

What does that have to do with religion?

No. Evidence of what? Where consciousness arises from? I would have thought neurology (combined with psychology, perhaps) might be more fruitful, but I really don't know.

Except, almost by definition, you can't know. Solipsism and free will / illusion of conscious agency / predeterminism are unprovable and unfalsifiable, almost by definition. How could you ever know if you had a choice to have tea or coffee or if it was determined in advance. So if you were certain about it, it would just be a belief not evidenced.

It may be. And free will could be an illusion as well. Does it matter? Does it make any difference? To life, to the way you would live it, to the "meaning" of life? Taken to an extreme you end up with solipsism. Which still doesn't make any difference.

I have no idea what you mean... It is a good article, though!