Strange

Some photons do. Others pass through the slits.

Then why is it quantised and determined by the number of nucleons and how they pair-up?

This is, again, from the section on how Maxwell's equation work in the context of GR. It is not about gravity. For that you need to refer to sections 1 to 9 and possibly 15 and 16. I assume you are familiar with tensors and their use in this context?

I never said anything of the sort. 1. My argument against the name change would be that you don't have much chance of changing a name that has been use by millions of people for 80 years (especially not by posting on a science forum). But I never made that argument because it seemed too obvious to be worth saying. 2. It has nothing to do with "logical inconsistency". I'm sure most or all of the alternative gravity (and other) theories are logically coherent. But they don't fit the evidence. And that is what science is about. 3. I didn't say "only discovery of particles could explain the effects of DM". The discovery of particles is irrelevant (although it would be nice). I said that dark matter as some form of matter is currently the best explanation we have for all the evidence.

This one: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Foundation_of_the_Generalised_Theory_of_Relativity ? (why do I need to keep providing your links for you?) The only reference to Maxwell there is where he shows how Maxwell’s equations work in the framework of GR This is not a description of gravity. That was in the first 40 or so pages that you seem to have ignored.

Of course. I have no idea.

Nope. First, lets sort out the source. I assume you meant this: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/press-release-gw170817. Correct? (I had to google for that, so I can't be sure it is what you were referring to. Your link is useless.) Second, the "electromagnetic observatories" referenced in that sentence are the various optical, radio and gamma wave observatories (not LIGO) that were looking for visible counterparts to the gravitational waves. This was expected (and found) in the case of neutron stars. LIGO does not detect electromagnetic waves, it detects gravitational waves. Gravity isn't. The strong nuclear force isn't. The weak nuclear force isn't. So, no. Not everything.

There is a (very long) Twitter thread explaining the significance of Flynn's plea deal and what it will mean for Trump and his minions.

I think it is. But he usually doesn't provide one. And, in this case, he should have explained why he thought it was relevant (e.g. the bit you quoted - even though, obviously, it doesn't support his view).

Except they aren't. That last one doesn't appear to say anything relevant. Maybe you need to provide some explanation or justification for your quotes, as well as the source.

It is created at the event horizon. Round if not rotating. Flattened if rotating. It is basically spherical. But the space-time around a rotating black hole is complicated.

I did. Gravitational waves are not electromagnetic. They are not stellar. And the waves are not LIGO. So do you want to try rewriting your first sentence?

What is the point of these random quotes? Are you interested in discussing anything?

Good catch. They are not stellar either. So that makes four three errors in the first sentence. No point reading any further. Please provide a link for your quotes. But, you are right, I will accept that. So we are down to three errors in the first sentence. Getting better.

Still wrong. Not electromagnetic. Nothing to do with Michelson. What is the point of this thread if you don't know what you are talking about and aren't interested in learning?

All elementary particles are point-like. What was measured was the electron dipole moment.

Interesting idea. I doubt there is a simple answer to that. My feeling is that the accretion disk is likely to be rotating in the same direction as the BH. But these things are complicated so ...

How is this represented in the equation? In other words how do you (or, more importantly, the equation) know if these three scalar values are co-planar or not?

What on Earth does this mean? How does a variable "exist in three dimensions"? But lets assume you mean that none of the variables can be equal to zero (so the equation is not an identity). If we set all three to 1 then the result is approximately 5.798 which, it might surprise you to know, is not equal to 1.

How is that any different? What can you know about quantum (or any other) systems without observing them?

In the case of quantum systems, it seems to be a fundamental property, not just an absence of knowledge. Which is why the coin analogy is flawed.

Can you show that this reproduces the motions of galaxy clusters, the velocity curves of galaxies, gravitational lensing, the Bullet cluster, the patterns in the CMB, large structure formation, and all the other evidence for dark matter? If not, it is a pretty hollow claim.

1. It is not an assumption, it is a conclusion from observations. 2. It is not random. Quantum effects are deterministic, but only in a probabilistic sense. It is like tossing a coin: you know (deterministically) that you will get a head or a tail but you only know with a certain probability that you will get a head. 3. It doesn't suppose any "intelligence" in matter. So, nice three-fold straw man argument.

Neither do they appear! Dalo, which parts of the experiment are important? Could we do without the lens and the sensor/film? Could we reduce the setup to two lasers and a partial obstruction: lasers aperture filter | O------------ | : | : (> observer O---------------------------:------- : : Will the observer see one or two light sources? Will this change if the filter is removed?