Strange

Incoherent gibberish.

Science proceeds by proving itself wrong. That is its great strength; that is how it is able to be so successful. Do you have any alternative suggestions? Actually, science very rarely shows a theory to be completely wrong. Usually it is just found to be inaccurate, incomplete or not applicable in some context. I can only think of a couple of examples of theories that were completely wrong and had to be rejected outright: phlogiston and the steady state universe. There may be a few more, but not many.

How about the proper definition, rather than "what is commonly known as"? So you don't know what infinity means. This comes across as both arrogant and condescending. I'm sure you don't mean it that way, but please be more careful with your words. If you have something to say, just say it. Don't act coy.

Well, science has been shown to work very effectively. If you have an idea for an alternative method, you need to demonstrate that it is better. Can you do that?

What does "bigger then infinite" mean? Do you even know what "infinite" means? Sheesh.

Yep. Not rotation curves. (I'm not saying the theory can't explain rotation curves - I have no idea - just pointing out that the "30,000 galaxies" is about lensing not speeds.) Does his theory predict the movements of galaxy clusters correctly, as well as speeds within galaxies Simulations of the formation of the large scale structure of the universe require dark matter to produce results consistent with the real universe; would these work equally well with his modified gravity theory The bullet cluster (and others) where it seems the dark matter (seen by gravitational lensing) has separated from the visible matter - not sure how just modifying gravity can do that The cosmic microwave background contains patterns that can be explained by the presence of dark matter in the early universe More detail here, for example: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/five-reasons-we-think-dark-matter-exists-a122bd606ba8

It depends on your definition of "fact". And "prove". Science usually starts with "facts" as evidence and then builds models to explain them. So, for example, gravity is a "fact" (things fall down) and then we have various theories of gravity that explain why things fall as they do. Similarly for evolution (a fact) and the theory of evolution (an explanation). I would say that science doesn't prove anything at all. It just describes or models and then tests those descriptions and models against the evidence. The best it can do is disprove a model.

Yes, but nothing about that being tested against 30,000 galaxies. That was gravitational lensing. The next test is to see if it can also explain all the other evidence for dark matter.

I think it is an interesting idea, but it seems to be a long way from being confirmed. Maybe a step in the right direction, though. Neither of your links say that, as far as I can tell. They both mention tests of gravitational lensing on a similar number of galaxies.

No, just pointing out that there are sources of language you can use that don't require you to write a web crawler.

There are large text corpora available with you trying to write your own web crawler. For example: https://corpus.byu.edu or https://www1.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/external/clmt/w3c/corpus_ling/content/corpora/list/index2.html

You might be better looking at neural networks. Simple chatbots use n-grams and they are impressively unintelligent!.

It is difficult to explain why you are wrong because you don't understand the subject and so you just reject the explanations (this has been true in all of your threads). And yet you are the one who constantly quotes the words of others but ignores the science. For example: Dalo: I don't believe X Others: Here is a simple explanation why you are wrong ... D: That's a bit vague, can you be more specific? O: <detailed explanation with evidence and a mathematical analysis> D: I don't need all that maths and what about [irrelevant sidetrack] O: What exactly are you asking? D: How dare you! O: I'm just trying to clarify D: I don't believe Y, as I have been saying all along O: So you have changed the subject D: No, you keep introducing P and Q, but I want to talk about Z O: OK. Do you understand <basic schoolboy physics>? D: Why should I have to? If you can't prove me wrong ... O: <collective sigh>

Not at all. It is entirely reasonable, in any subject, to insist that someone understand the basics of the subject before engaging in an intelligent discussion. As you make it clear with every post (in every thread) that you don't have a clue, there is no "pretence" that you are not qualified. Your repeated responses of "Bell's theorem is wrong ... OK, not wrong but not applicable ... no I can't say why it doesn't apply I just don't think it should" only serve to confirm this. Your insistence that your nonsensical arguments should be taken seriously is indistinguishable from trolling. Edit: I have suggested that the mods close this thread as you are clearly unable/unwilling to engage with the subject.

Uncool is not second guessing yours; rather trying to get you to clarify your position. But, as always, you refuse to do this because ... well, because of course you do.

Maybe. If "the reader" is willing to understand. You, on the other hand, start with the assumption that science is wrong and then misinterpret everything you read (or just make stuff up) in order to support that belief.

3.9 GB sounds extraordinarily large. I assume by "3 words", you mean 3-grams. How many of these are there in the 3MB file?

Mainstream science is supported by (lots of) evidence. You can't argue against it with half-baked ideas based on an inability/unwillingness to understand either the science or the theory. All your threads come down to: "I want science to be wrong so I am going to make up some fairy stories that contradict the evidence; therefore the evidence must be wrong". You would need to present some actual evidence, not what you think should happen in any given experiment. You are wasting everyone's time. Including your own.

Not helpful, but the title reminds me of the opening lines of Chandler's Red Wind: "There was a desert wind blowing that night. It was one of those hot dry Santa Ana's that come down through the mountain passes and curl your hair and make your nerves jump and your skin itch. On nights like that every booze party ends in a fight. Meek little wives feel the edge of the carving knife and study their husbands' necks. Anything can happen. You can even get a full glass of beer at a cocktail lounge." I can well imagine that the heat makes people impatient and short tempered. But haven't seen any studies.

Interesting. I will see if I can find out more... There is a forum called CosmoQuest (naff name) where there are a lot of people interested in astronomy and related subjects (including some professional astronomers). You could try asking there; you'll might get more knowledgable answers.

I didn't know that. Do you have reference for the amounts (and possible explanations)? I guess that is because water is not very heavy and also very volatile. So even if it had been present in the material making up the early earth, much of it would have evaporated again until things cooled down.

Another way of looking at it (exactly equivalent to swansont's explanation) is that it is a choice made by the person drawing the diagram. There are multiple paths you could draw, not all of which are useful. We need to trace the path of the light ray which will hit the upper mirror, then be reflected and hit the screen at the bottom. Because the apparatus is moving, you need to choose a path where the light goes at a slight forward angle in order to keep up with the apparatus.

Yes. The previous post was about space (not space-time).

No, it is a general term for any inability to process sensory inputs in a specific way - theWikipedia entry mentions hearing related forms (not recognising voices) and touch (not being able to recognise an object from what it feels like) and so on.

While I wouldn’t disagree that gender is (partly) a construct I don’t think that means it isn’t real. Language, money, ethics and art are all social constructs and are real (depends ng on the definition for f “real”).