Strange

That's weird. The forum software must have failed to parse the like for some reason. It has created links with no URL. As it is too late for you to edit the post, here they are again: http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/24218-near-earth-objects/page-11#entry354689 http://www.satview.org/?sat_id=37820U http://en.cmse.gov.cn/col/col1763/index.html EDIT: Well, that's even weirder. They didn't appear properly are, either until I went to the websites and copied the URLs from there. Try again http://www.satview.org/?sat_id=37820U http://www.satview.org/?sat_id=37820U OK. The first was pasted normally and doesn't work. The second was pasted as plain text, and worked. So the formatting of the text (blue underline, etc) seems to stop the forum seeing them as links. You could report that as a bug in the feedback section, I guess.

Why are you doing this in Philosophy, rather than Physics? This is typical of your sloppy thinking. As you don't give a source, one can't really comment. It looks pretty nonsensical, though. Sounds like you are desperately searching for anything that will support your beliefs. It's almost as if this obsession with "quantum foam" and "space dimensions" is like a religion for you.

It doesn't imply that. Just because people disagree on "now" doesn't mean that time stops. It is not about "perception". The rate of time is seen to pass differently by different observers. At the boundary of an black hole, time dilation becomes infinite so no time would pass as seen by a distant observer. Someone falling into the black hole would not notice any change to time, though. That is a completely different thing. Nothing to do with time ore relativity. But there is the quantum Zeno effect, where the state of system won't change if measured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect And, more generally, any attempt to measure something will change the thing being measured: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) (But, again, nothing to do with relativity. And why are you asking these questions in a thread on religion. Start a thread in physics if you want to ask questions like this.)

When it comes to health care you could give more people better care and still save money. The USA must have one of the most stupidly inefficient systems in the world. By design. That is a huge amount of money but it isn’t the main problem.

Wherever you are, you will measure time to be the same What makes time relative is when you compare the times (and lengths) measured by different people. There are some places where we cannot compare these (for examples le, inside a black hole). No. Different people will not agree on “now”. More importantly, they may not agree on whether two events happen at the same time. Or even, the order they occurred.

Space is part of space-time, not something separate. “Before the Big Bang” doesn’t really mean anything. It is a bit like asking what is north of the North Pole. A better question might be: what happened instead of the singularity predicted by GR?

Eve if his hypothesis were correct (there is zero evidence for it) it would not mean the universe is a black hole. A black hole is nothing like a universe.

It would help with navigation, presumably. Especially for migratory birds.

Good grief. From the first paragraph of your link: APPARENT. In other words, not purposeful and goal directed. CONTRASTED with PURPOSEFUL. In other words, not purposeful and goal directed. Maybe English is not your first language, but either way you need to sharpen up your comprehension skills. Why use the word teleology if you don't understand what it means?

Most of the universe is plasma: most interstellar and intergalactic hydrogen is ionised. Stars are big balls of plasma. The outer part of the atmosphere (the ionosphere) is plasma. Maybe if you said what you weer looking for, instead of making guesses, people might be bale to help.

This article answer this question (and several others): http://astrobenne.blogspot.it/2018/04/the-galaxy-without-that-special.html Overall summary seems to be that the conclusions in the original paper need more work.

Sounds like plasma to me. Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter#Plasma

Well, you can find copious peer-reviewed literature, courses and text books on taxonomy, the Linnaean system, cladistics, etc. If you look up most organisms on Wikipedia for example, you will find information on the species, genus, family, order, kingdom, etc. Is there the same level of scientific documentation on how to classify people by race? I think the answer is no (but am open to correction) which suggests it is not a [useful] biological category. (Note, there is no meaningful distinction between a useful category and a biological category, because biological categories only exist in as far as they are useful.) Really? There are Chinese people who look Middle Eastern, who look Mongolian, or Tibetan, or like Han Chinese or ... And of course, there are Chinese people who look like Northern Europeans or Afro-Carribeans. And ... That is a bizarrely diverse group to try and stereotype. Really? I mean, Really?? Time for the ignore list, I guess.

Not usually, no. Of course. The sun. Lightning. Flames. Fluorescent lights. Maybe. It sounds like you are looking for something that has nothing to do with plasma. Plasma physics is complex but is well understood. Energy is a property of things. It doesn't exists by itself.

Plasma is ionised gas. I have no idea what "energy in a transient form" means. To look for what?

That makes sense. (I'm guessing you mean "lifecycle"? But the idea of fleas choosing this as their lifestyle does rather appeal...)

That article is about words for colour it has almost nothing to do with how colours are perceived.

That article is about why people see exactly the same thing as different colours. There are also people with various types of colour-blindness who also see colours differently than most.

That is pretty meaningless. How would a photon "perceive" time, anyway? The claims seems to be based on bogus physics and mathematics. (Ignoring the fact that a photon does not have a valid frame of reference because that would involve dividing by zero.) That isn't the purpose of the Speculations forum.

This is a science forum, so I can't see that going well. Then I think we can conclude it is nonsense. ("That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".) Any evidence for that? No we don't. We have some fairy tales. Then you had better start producing evidence from reputable sources.

Hmmm... that goes against everything I have ever read. I was under the impression they spend most of their time in carpets, bedding and the environment. I have just googled this to check and there are websites saying they do spend most of their lives on dogs and others saying they don't!. I can't be bothered to try and find a reputable source to see which is correct. So I am happy to concede I was (probably/possibly) wrong.

Well, that is in contradiction with current theory. It's actually the other way round. Because the acceleration started about 5 billion years ago, we see accelerated expansion nearby relative to galaxies further away. And then there is all the other evidence for dark energy to explain. So you are suggesting we need to change the way our model of gravity works, in order to explain the effects? None of the models that attempt to do that so far have worked. And then there is all the other evidence for dark matter to explain. The trouble is, you need to quantify the expected effect first. Otherwise, suppose the data is available but shows no such effect. Does the mean your idea is wrong, or does it just mean that the measurements were not accurate enough. It depends how distant. (Again, see the need to quantify it?) The red shift across galaxies has been looked at to determine the speed of rotation, for example. But I don't know if those galaxies are too close to be affected by expansion. I don't know if galaxies that are affected by expansion are too small for differences like this to be measured. Maybe you need to research these questions ...

Does that even mean anything? An extra dimension? So it exists in one dimension and magically appears to us in three dimensions? How does that work? Philosophy is supposed to be based on the rigorous application of logic. I don’t see much sign of that here.

You seem to be saying: we observe these things that require an explanation but we shouldn't attempt to explain them, we should just accept them for what they are. That is not how science works. Or contract. Errrr. No. We observe things that are not explained by the current laws of gravity. One of those is the accelerating expansion of space. This is most easily explained by adding some extra energy to space. You seem to just want to avoid explaining it. The other one is the anomalous orbital speeds in galaxies and galaxy clusters. Most simply explained by adding some unseen matter (which also matches other observations). Again, you seem to want to avoid an explanation for some reason. Unless you can quantify what this difference should be, this is a meaningless test. Great. Show us this mathematics, then.

Well it seems to be a fundamental property of space that with a homogeneous distribution of matter (which there is on large scales) that it will expand (or contract, depending on density).