Strange

A star does not have a black body spectrum. So an infinite number of stars wouldn't either.

Sigh. This getting pathetic. Not all anti-vaccination reasons are religious. I'm not even convinced a majority are. You have evidence of one example.

I don't believe you. All your examples are cases where there are other causes. And, therefore, no. Bye.

Again, better to tackle the problem itself rather than something incidental. And one good way might be to get religious organisations to help.For example, an Imam in the UK is running an anti-terrorism workshop this weekend. So maybe it could be more effective to get the churches, mosques, etc to explain to people why they are mistaken about vaccines. Certainly better than attacking their religious beliefs, which would probably only entrench their views. Anyway, this is going nowhere. You are stuck in your narrow-minded and bigoted worldview. So I think I'll leave it there. I'm getting a bit sick of your offensive innuendos.

So? Neither did I. Is there a relationship between polio and measles I wasn't formerly aware of? Do you have any evidence they are? Why would you think that? It's a ridiculous idea.

The weak interaction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction It is how we detect neutrinos, for example.

How exactly are problems with polio vaccination Africa going to result in "your neighbour's kids who are immune deficient (and can't be vaccinated) dying from measles because other people didn't vaccinate their healthy kids and maintain herd immunity."

As you appear to jumped the rhetorical shark. I will leave to stew in your bigotry.

NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. Sheesh. As are many things. Good and bad. But it is not the cause. Unless you have evidence that Andrew Wakefield was driven by his religious beliefs?

Other people's religion has no detectable effect on me. And, again, nothing to do with religion.

I wouldn't say a word was invented unless it was created de novo (like corpulent or radar).

That is not "in space" is it?

It depends on the interaction. It could be the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force or electromagnetism. Or even gravity, I suppose. Are you reconsidering the idea that you might have a "hypothesis" yet?

You are the one who appears to be illogical. There are non-religious racists. Arguably, being anti religious is akin to racism (most advanced countries treat religious prejudice as equal to racial prejudice). And claiming that Brexit is caused by religion seems a stretch. Do you just blame everything you don't like on religion? And, again, not necessarily anything to do with religion.

Sub-atomic means (informally) "smaller than an atom" "Atom" means indivisible, so when it was found that they were composed of other particles, these were called sub-atomic particles. We then found out that there are an even larger number of particles that do not occur in atoms. Baryons and mesons have already been mentioned. All mesons decay because of the weak interaction. But they do not occur in atoms. Free neutrons (outside of atoms) decay through the weak interaction.

Fair comment. I was not thinking about the historic development (for once) but the future. Science is not going to suddenly start including random beliefs alongside evidence. If it did, then it wouldn't be science. Also, question for Mike: why should science include your beliefs and not those of the millions of others with different, but equally strong beliefs? The answer is: that is why the scientific method is the way it is. So it doesn't depend on personal beliefs.

"a strong attractive force between nucleons in the atomic nucleus that holds the nucleus together." Sounds right to me. But this is caused by the (residual) strong force between the nucleons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force "This article is about the force that holds nucleons together in a nucleus. ... Not to be confused with weak nuclear force." "The weak force plays no role in the interaction of nucleons ..."

I thought everyone was being very encouraging. It is pretty smart to rediscover an old method. Just as clever as discovering a totally new one.

As I understand it, they are too far apart to even sustain a sound wave.

It can take place inside an atom. It can also take place outside an atom. How on Earth can you have a "hypothesis" when you don't even understand the most basic physics? That is not a hypothesis it is wild guess.

This has been answered multiple times. You are not going to get a different answer just by asking the same question. The weak interaction can go either way depending on whether it is energetically favourable or not. If there are specific details of the mechanism (as described on the various Wikipedia pages that have been referenced, and the sources listed there) that you don't understand then feel free to ask questions about those. "Still, the W and Z bosons derive from within an atom" This is nonsense.

It has nothing to do with "currently". And it is probably these constant repetitions of the same errors/falsehoods that annoys people, rather than your vague waffle about your beliefs.

As the OP is pushing a non-mainstream theory (to put it kindly) I think explaining why he is mistaken is completely on-topic.

It has already been explained that science can say nothing about this because it is not amenable to testing. The only "pressure" I see is people telling you not to pretend you are talking about science when you are talking about your personal beliefs. What on Earth does that mean? It is totally incomprehensible.

Why do you care? Apparently, enough is left for a lot of people. That may bother you, but maybe you just need to get over it.