Strange

Eugenics is different than mind? That makes no sense. It isn't science, good or bad. Communism isn't science. Art isn't science. Fairy tales aren't science. Lot's of things aren't science. Eugenics is one of them. I have no idea why you would guess such an idiotic thing.

After all that incoherent gibberish, this question. Nothing causes it. It seems to be a fundamental aspect of reality. But maybe it is related to energy conservation, which is related to symmetry; basically the fact that the laws of physics do not change over time.

That is a question of ethics, so how should we "forget about ethics". You are not making much sense. I'm not even sure what the relevance of this (rather confused) question was. I didn't say anything of the sort. There may a genetic component to some of those. How is that relevant? You seem to be confusing genetics with eugenics. Genetics is a well-understood science (with some open questions, like all science). The paper that opened this thread is about genetics, not eugenics. Eugenics is an obscene political ideology with no basis in science. You have yet to cite any experimental evidence that eugenics works (or even that it doesn't work). So your claim that it is science appears to be bogus. It appears to be based on the fact you don't know the meaning of the word.

That should make it possible to test. Get him to to tell us something no one else knows and we can then check if it is correct. (It needs to be something testable, though. Maybe the winning lottery numbers for the rest of the year....)

For the same reason that everything falls towards the centre of the earth.

Yes you are. And, as usual when you make stuff up, you are wrong. But that doesn't include mass. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

The reason virtual particle pairs can appear is because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. They "borrow" the energy equivalent to their mass and then pay it all back when they disappear. So there is no spare energy to radiate.

"Are" not "is" - they are completely unrelated concepts. No one knows what either of them are, just the effects. But the evidence is fairly overwhelming now that dark matter is some sort of matter rather than our description of gravity being wrong.

There is a mountain of evidence for Darwinian evolution. There is zero evidence that eugenics does or can work. As far as I know, no research on the effectiveness of eugenics has been done. But feel free to present some science supporting eugenics rather than opinions. There are none for eugenics (but lots for evolution). So evolution is a theory but eugenics isn't. Science doesn't prove things. I'm just pointing out that the paper has nothing to do with eugenics.

The personal beliefs of scientists are not necessarily anything to do with science. I have no idea why you would think that. Neither this paper nor natural selection have anything to do with eugenics. The rest of your post is too stupid to respond to.

You appear to have done exactly that by preaching your religious beliefs on a science forum.

How the heck did you work that out!?

This doesn't make much sense. You are saying that nothing in the universe is perfect and this is evidence of perfect creation? Surely if a perfect creator had created the world by a perfect art, then the result would be perfect. You are saying it isn't perfectly uniform. Therefore you don't accept Genesis, correct? So you disagree with the bible and that nature is irrational? That contradicts what you have said above (where you deny creation). It is also impossible because Jesus didn't exist when the universe was created. Not resentment. I am just baffled that anyone can write such incoherent nonsense.

It tells me that it was a bunch of ignorant and bigoted politicians with no understanding or interesting in science. There is no science behind it. You can keep pretending that there is, but it just makes you look foolish.

So nothing to support your claim that information = mass? What a surprise. Please stop making stuff up.

A member (now banned) recently posted the following dishonest statement as a way of defending his religious beliefs: In case anyone is misled or confused by his lies, I just wanted to point out that this result does not throw any doubt by on either the cosmic background radiation or the big bang model. As the article says, the polarisation of the CMB had been interpreted as possible evidence for inflation (a hypothetical phase of very rapid expansion). But it (the polarisation) is now understood to be caused by dust. So we can conclude that the CMB is there and supports the big bang model, but it doesn't provide any evidence for inflation (which is not an essential part of the model). I will leave others to decide if the poster was being deliberately dishonest or is just too stupid to understand what he reads.

Talk to your doctor. Not random strangers on the `internet.

Eugenics. Eugenics has nothing to do with science. It has never been good science. It has never been junk science. It has nothing to do with science. Sheesh. One definition of art is "what an artist does". The equivalent definition does not apply to science. Just because some scientists are religious, play the piano or think that doing evil things will improve the human species does not make religion, jazz or eugenics anything to do with science. No. It doesn't say that.

Do they? If they do, perhaps because they haven't looked at the evidence.

What is wrong with you people? Why the obsession with aether? There never was any evidence for it. It was always unnecessary and impossible. You might as well look for evidence of angels or invisible pink flying unicorns. Just get a life. Get interested in science instead. Learn some science. At least phlogiston was a valid scientific theory. It had evidence. It could be quantified and tested.

This might be useful, too: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/161-our-solar-system/the-earth/day-night-cycle/189-how-do-sunrise-and-sunset-times-change-with-altitude-intermediate "The variation with altitude is approximately linear, and so we conclude that sunset is later by 1 minute for every 1.5 kilometres in altitude, and that sunrise is earlier by the same amount."

I don't think the cause of gamma-ray bursts is completely understood. Some come from the formation of black holes by a collapsing star. Others may be from the merging of neutron stars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19681-most-powerful-gamma-ray-bursts-linked-to-black-holes/

When you raised this before, we got as far as establishing that you agree that light is quantised but that the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the electron and not the photon. Is that correct? If so, I guess my first question would be: why isn't light charged? Why isn't its path changed by the presence of charge or a magnetic field? This also sounds as if you are suggesting the velocity is dependent on the wavelength? Or have I misunderstood? And does this mean that you don't think of a waveform being somehow associated with the electron, but that it is actually moving in a sinusoidal path? This raises more questions: 1. What causes the electron to move sinusoidally? That would require a force to change its velocity (direction of motion) wouldn't it? 2. We know a charged particle radiates when it is accelerated, so why doesn't the electron lose energy and come to a halt?

This has nothing to do with science.

Yep. General relativity. Do you have anything to back up your claims?