Strange

As this doesn't happen, we need to think about why. One problem with diagrams as you (and Wikiedia) have drawn them is that it looks as if the doors are shut for a significant time with the ladder between them. In reality they would have to move at near light speed (as Janus noted). Then, as uncool noted, the rods are not rigid and would be bent and compressed by the movement so they never meet. The instant the doors are fully closed they need to open again, so there is no time for the ends of the rods to reach the positions where they would meet. The explanation is basically the same as that under the variations described on the Wikipedia page, particularly the "Shutting the ladder in the garage" version.

Well, there are because you have drawn the ladder and building reduced in size. So you have just guessed at these, and the relative positions at different times. You have obviously guessed wrong and so someone (ideally you) needs to calculate what really happens in order to understand why your guesses are wrong.

Maybe if you show how you calculate thesis, position, etc of the ladder and the doors, it will be possible to point out where you have gone wrong. At the moment, it looks like you have just drawn some pictures that create a problem. Which, of course, one can do with any theory! You need to show that you are actually applying the theory ...

What context? How does it make any difference: using metric (or feet and inches) has nothing to do with whether the circumference of a circle is a rational value or not.

The wavelength of light has nothing to do with light years or parsecs: All light travels at the same speed. Light can have any wavelength (rational or irrational) c is not equal to 1 The wavelength of light has nothing to do with the unit circle. Well, I guess that is a problem you need to fix by understanding how it is defined. Obviously not. The circumference of a circle can have any value it is not constrained to be rational. If the radius is one metre, the circumference will be irrational, when measured in metres.

OK. I looked this up in one of my references. There are a few parts per billion of gold in the human body, the highest level (out 16 ppb) in the bones. It is also used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (look up chrysotherapy if you want to know more) but can only be used for short periods because of very serious side effects. No he isn't. For example: "He says that gold is similar to alkali metals in that it has one electron on the s subshell of the outermost electron shell and because of this "wants to go to two electrons or it wants no electrons", and therefore regular metallic gold is "diatomic" with the formula Au2, with an ionic bond between the atoms.[1][5] This shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of chemical bonding in metals. If his theory was true, gold would have a much lower melting temperature and would not be malleable or ductile." That has nothing to with "anti gravitational alchemy cure-all nonsense"; it is just pointing out that the scientific-sounding claims are factually wrong. Maybe the problem is that you don't understand enough physics or chemistry to understand the explanations given?

You haven't explained what is wrong with the evidence on that Rational Wiki page. That is not at all obvious. The brain is not an electromagnet. It is a biochemical system. Then please provide some evidence for this. Anyone who "knows" that is seriously misguided and needs to study some basic biology.

There is a list of fundamental errors in the claims. How are they not "factual evidence"? There seem to be unsubstantiated and largely meaningless claims on one side and science on the other. Not all "opinions" are equally valid.

This page lists some of the problems with the concept: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/ORMUS

But that wasn’t caused by black holes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/08/newest-ligo-signal-raises-a-huge-question-do-merging-black-holes-emit-light/

There are many different algorithms with different performance trade-offs: http://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs164-09-spring/Handouts/paper_colldect_survey2.pdf An overview here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision_detection

I assume not. As no such radiation is expected from black holes it would have been headlined.

No, it just means it is not bounced off in that direction (because it is polarised, which limits the range of angles at which the light is scattered).

OK. That makes perfect sense.

Light itself is not visible, only when it bounces off something’s nag and reaches they eye. If light is scattered vertically it can’t be seen from the side, only from the top. (And conversely for light scattered sideways) in either case most light will not be scattered and will pass through and hit the mirror. I’m afraid I haven’t (can’t) watch the video so can’t be sure if that answer helps!

Like all such “proofs” it is trivially false unless you already believe.

No it doesn’t.

Which, of course, is why “god” is the worst possible explanation: whatever happens, whatever evidence is found can always be attributed to some new and arbitrary behaviour of god.

The main challenge is creating magnetic fields that can confine the plasma. It is not (just) the temperature, but the rapidly changing electric and magnetic fields in the moving plasma.

What is the connection between polarisation and vision? I didn’t think the photoreceptors in the eye were sensitive to polarisation. (At least, not the human eye.) Am I mistaken?

Although science tries to quantify things not everything can be described mathematically. And, of course, the fact that our brains are able to describe the world using mathematics doesn’t mean that the world is inherently mathematical. We can also describe the universe using poetry. It doesn’t mean it is a poem. (Map vs territory, etc. )

Yes, a photon has energy. We agree on that. But the only acceleration here is a (tiny) recoil of the atom. For the same reason it is not made of spin or momentum or wavelength. These are all just properties of a photon. Other particles have energy, they are not made of energy either.

I was just reading about the Bogomils, Christians who believed in two gods; the (evil) god of the Old Testament who created the material world and the (good) god of the New Testament who created the spiritual world. I quite like that idea. (They are also where we get the word “bugger” from!)

There is no uncertainty in pi. Nonsense. If the radius is, for example, 1 metre then the circumference will be an irrational number. (And vice versa)

Nuclear power. We already use this (as others have said). All power generation systems (coal, oil, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc) produce more energy than you put in. Otherwise there would be no point building them. So they are all “free” by your definition. But the costs come from extracting the fuel, building the power plant, distributing the electricity, maintenance and so on. That is fusion, rather than nuclear fusion. The problems there are technical, engineering ones. We are at least 50 years from practical fun soon power.