Strange

OK. Lets try and pick out some of the obvious errors. Quantum fluctuations exist in space. Length, width and height can quite happily exist without them. This appears to be completely baseless. Wrong way round. Quantum fluctuations are the result of the uncertainty principle. Just no. General relativity has nothing to do with quantum fluctuations but does an extremely good job of describing gravity. Utterly erroneous conclusion resulting from a baseless assumptions. It is almost certain that dark matter is some form of matter; it is not the background energy of the vacuum. Cahill is a complete crackpot. You should ignore anything by him. That is complete speculation.

That is a very confused and slightly incoherent picture. Bits of it may have some connection to physics, large parts of it seem to be made up. But as you don't seem to be interested in anything unless it confirms your ideas, I will leave it at that.

Is that all? Amateur.

So you can't choose two cards that don't exist? Now that's a rational objection. There is no such thing as "numerical infinity". You may be the only person who doesn't understand.

Stop claiming that your guesses are true. Look at research into the relationship between IQ and birthdate. (You have already been give one, I'm are there are others). Look at research into the relationship between memory and birthdate. Look at research into the validity of horoscopes (hint: none of them show any validity to horoscope predictions of characteristics). You could write to the authors of papers that seem relevant and ask if they know of any other relevant research But, most importantly: Stop claiming that your guesses are true. If you keep doing this you will be dismissed as a crank who has no interest in science.

Then you don't know your wild guesses are correct. STOP saying it is true when you cannot know. (Because you have no evidence.)

This has nothing to do with Einstein or relativity. It is explained purely by Newtonian mechanics. Please provide a reference where Einstein predicted "negative G's". There is no maximum speed when things become weightless. Terminal velocity is when acceleration ("G's") stops because of, for example, air resistance. There is no such thing as "terminal acceleration" (as far as I know). This is not caused by reaching maximum velocity. It is when the downward acceleration equals the acceleration due to gravity (this is what free fall means).

In a philosophical sense, maybe: it is possible to argue for it. However, scientifically it is unfalsifiable so it can't play any role in a scientific theory. Deine "absolute universe" and "relative universe".

Not without evidence.

Space is not "stuff" so a black hole cannot be filled with it. Don't stretch the analogy too far. Space isn't literally falling into the black hole (which isn't literally a black hole). Space (in the context of GR, which we are talking about) is distances between things in three dimensions (and the geometry that relates them). It may be full of quantum fluctuations (because quantum fields have a non-zero value because they are quantised) but it is not made of quantum fluctuations. No. For one thing, it wouldn't have the right distribution. The non-zero background energy which gives rise to these virtual particles is the same everywhere. That is not the distribution of dark energy that we see. It is thought that the quantum foam (non-zero background energy) could explain dark energy but it appears to be 10120 times too large.

You seem to be confusing computer programming with computer science. And (formal) logic is a branch of mathematics, not separate from it. It is also widely used in computer science. (And in computer programming.)

So measuring time is a physical process. But that doesn't mean that time itself is. Similarly, measuring length is a physical process but length itself isn't. If I were a moderator, I would close the thread and let him wait...

But you said: "ZERO is not a value"! Not infinity, ZERO!!! No one disagrees that infinity is not a number or value. (It isn't relevant, but that is beside the point.) The point of contention is that zero IS a number and a value. So why did you say it wasn't??? To take your example: X = a/b; Let a=10, b=2 What is the value of X? The value is 5. Let a=0 Now what is the value of x? It is zero of course. So why did you say that wasn't a value? [Of course, I will never know because (a) I am on ignore and (b) Scherzando refuses to clarify what he means - he thinks it is easier to just put anyone who asks for clarification on ignore.) There is a quite a lot of mathematics in computer science.

Oh, is that what it was supposed to mean. It was not clear. But I don't really understand what your objection is. You have stated a couple of impossible ways of specifying the card you want to choose (the first and the last). Perhaps you are trying to suggest that there is no algorithmic way of specifying the card. This may be true, but I think the axiom of choice still says we can choose a card from an infinite set. Which makes me think there could be a solution to the problem in terms of set theory (which is often good way of handling infinities) but I have forgotten nearly all I knew of naive set theory! (Which wasn't much to start with...)

Don't believe it.

You tell us. You seem to be the expert.

Probably better than your guesses. There is no evidence for any of this, so I am going with "pseudoscientific nonsense". Studies have been done. You could also look for tests of horoscopes. I am cerytain that all the evidence will contradict your guesses. But then you will just dismiss them. Not without evidence.

Phase changes (esp. sublimation)

There were no galaxies. Just a uniform plasma filling all of space. That space then expanded and cooled. Eventually clouds of gas collapsed (because of gravity) to form galaxies and stars.

What do you think probability means? How would you calculate the chance of drawing the ace of spades from a pack of cards?

It is bit silly to lie like that when anyone can look at the paper.

Ah yes. I managed to miss that link. Well, there you are then. Hypothesis (wild guess) disproved. Move along. Nothing to see here.

You can't conclude anything from a sample size of 2. You need to learn a little bit about how statistics are used to draw conclusions about the correlation between data sets. And also, that correlation is not the same as causation. For example, there may be a relationship between when people are born and how well they do at school because the people around them may be up to a year older or up to a year younger depending on their date of birth (and therefore which school year they are in). As IQ tests are notoriously poor at measuring something innate, this could be a factor if the relationship you claim exists. However, there is, so far, zero evidence for any such relationship. Your made up numbers don't count.

That "one location" was the entire universe (which was much, much smaller then). You seem to be thinking of it as explosion that happened somewhere in space. (The whole idea of the Big Bang as an "event that happened" is mistaken, anyway; it is about the universe expanding. The whole universe expands so it is happening everywhere. On large enough scales.) Were people around 13.8 billion years ago? Surviving in a plasma at several million degrees?

What is special about 1984?