Strange

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/09/05/we-found-out-what-food-combining-is-and-if-it-actually-works_a_21465909/ https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/food-combining https://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2015/05/12/debunking-the-myth-of-food-combining And on and on. Looks like it is BS. And your mother is mistaken about fruit and starch (or protein or whatever it was).

I also don't believe you can digest lego pieces. Unless you have evolved an ABS-ase enzyme.

I'm not sure how any of that is relevant to refraction or the fact that photons always move at c.

I don't agree. And the article you cite says that we have evolved digest lactose (i.e. that you are wrong). I would be interested in such a thing, if you have one. Note: "combining diets" only work (if they work at all) because they reduce the amount people eat by restricting what is allowed.

Indeed. So saying something like "dairy is bad" sounds rather foolish. Eating too much fat, form any source, may be a problem (but the evidence for that is pretty shaky). Eating an unbalanced diet is probably not good. Eating to much is probably not good. But any claims that X is bad are to be treated with extreme caution. (Apart from a few cases; for example if X is Amanita phalloides!)

Very few alternative gravity theories have an underlying principle beyond "curve-fitting".

Well, the first two look about as unbiased as the OPs source. (In other words, they are crank diet sites.) I would have thought that your opinions would have had some support rather than you having to hurriedly look for some. This is, as they say, surprising and needs to be confirmed by other studies. Burden of proof ...

Citation needed. Citation needed.

More generally, fermions have half-integer spin and bosons have integer spin. Some bosons have mass. I don't think there is any reason why spin 0 particles are hard to detect. There is a good summary graphic on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle#/media/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg Neutrinos travel at less than light speed (they have mass). But because of their low mass, most of them probably move at very, very close to light speed. Slow moving ones are also harder to detects they are even less likely to interact with matter. I doubt any is stationary (but I suppose that depends what you are using as a frame of reference). "To make the sums work" is an odd way of putting it. It is required to explain the orbital speeds around galaxies which don't match those calculated without it. The main constraint is that it only interacts gravitationally. It can't be neutrinos because they move to fast. Unless the hypothetical sterile neutrino exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_neutrino It can't be dust because we would see that blocking light.

Exactly. That value is what is measured, it allows space craft to meet their destinations, allows the orbits of planets to be calculated. That is why it is the right value. Replacing it with a different value would mean that satellites would fall out of the sky, space missions would fail and GPS would not work. As your math produces the wrong result, there is clearly an error somewhere. Good. Let us know when you have some experimental data.

Please show an example where this is done. You haven't measured the value. Measurements show you are wrong. How are they "adjusted"? The equations describing gravity were not changed after G was measured. Please show an example where this is done. You haven't measured the value. Measurements show you are wrong. How are they "adjusted"? The equations describing gravity were not changed after G was measured.

Has anyone said that they think that?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing

I would like to say it is because I have nothing better to do. But it is just prevarication and work avoidance!

Go on then. No one is stopping you. Reported for trolling

I don't think you can expect the average reader, especially not those with some basic education in science, to be familiar with the terminology you have invented in your made-up "theory". It is up to you to explain these concepts you have invented (or "discovered"); it is not up to others to try and work out what you are talking about. You clearly have plenty of time on your hands, so there is no reason for you to avoid explanations instead of asking silly questions.

But... that is just linguistic trickery to avoid answering the question. After all, magnetodielectric subterranean trans-euclidean anapraxic field hypergeometry tells us all we need to know.

Indeed. And while there will always be some saying, "come on guys, let it go" there will always be others saying, "hang on, I just want to try this ..."

Is it? I guess you are thinking of tidal forces / spaghetiffication? In that case, as an object is stretched it also gets thinner and the volume remains constant. This page has a good overview of the mathematics of GR: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/ (which one can follow, without knowing all the math).

Maybe English does need a future tense, after all.

I guess the author's point is that at some point you have to decide some particular line of enquiry isn't going to work (this is why the adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not always true - after spending 6 months looking for unicorns in my garden and finding no trace, I think it is safe to conclude that they are not there.) On the other hand, because people are stubborn and imaginative and curious, there will always be people looking for alternative explanations (even after we have identified what dark matter is).

I see what you mean. The exact proportion of dark matter is different in some galaxies (as are the number of stars, for example). Some of that is as expected (e.g. less in young galaxies). But it is the "same" dark matter: it behaves the same way. And the overall amount is consistent with other evidence. That seems a lot less ad-hoc than saying "the law of gravity for this galaxy is given by equation 1; the the law of gravity for that galaxy is given by equation 2; the law of gravity for this cluster is given by equation 3; here the equation for gravitational lensing needs to be adjusted by this much; there the equation for gravitational lensing needs to be adjusted by this much" and so on. ("And, by the way, we can't explain large structure formation; maybe gravity behaved completely differently in the early universe.")

That is not a contradiction. You can, of course, use the correct velocity addition formula at low velocities. It is just unnecessary unless you are really concerned that the relative speed of two vehicles at 30MPH is 60.0000...00001 instead of 60.

"The orient"? Wow. Welcome to the 20th century. Also, it might surprise you to know that the FDA does not control everything outside of "the orient". It is a US-based organisation that has no significant influence outside the USA. (Not that I give any credence to your conspiracy claims anyway.)

If the universe is finite, it is still unbounded; i.e. There is nothing outside it. As a 2D analogy, consider the surface of a sphere (just the surface, this is a 2D analogy). That has a fixed measurable area but there is no edge of the world where you can look over the edge. If you go far enough in any direction you will eventually end up where you started.