Strange

Erm... I thought you were criticising Area54 for suggesting it could (not that he said that, anyway). But now you are saying it can.

Who are those people? You keep making this claim, but there is no evidence it is true.

Did anyone say that choosing (or being given) the meaning of life would help exit from depression? There must be many people who suffer from depression who have a very clear idea of the meaning of their life (religion, family, art, whatever) when not in the grip of depression. The two things seem largely unrelated, to me.

I can't see the relevance of this comment.

How does kinetic energy or vis viva relate to the accelerating expansion of the universe?

That is not what the big bang theory says. Einstein's equations do not assume empty space. All useful solutions including matter or energy. (There are some solutions that are based on empty space but they, perhaps obviously, do not apply to the universe we live in!) But discussing Einstein's equations and what they describe is not like a religious belief because it is based on EVIDENCE. Indeed. And there is no evidence for the graviton. I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. What does this have to do with religious belief? This is totally off topic now. If you want to discuss this, please start a thread in the Physics section. And be prepared to provide some support for these claims. 1. It is based on evidence first. 2. There is a mathematical model that makes predictions that match this evidence. 3. It is not promoted as a fact but as the best theory we currently have. 4. This still has nothing to do with religion. Just because Creationists say it is science, doesn't mean it is. It is just another lie. But congratulations for finally bringing religion into the discussion. It has already been noted that Creationism is one of the few examples where people do attempt to undermine science and education for religious reasons. But this really has no significant effect on the progress of science. Unless you can provide some evidence it does, instead of yet more incoherent and irrelevant rambling. (And the big bang model doesn't say anything about creation or the beginning ion time.) The reason you are being told you are ignorant is because you keep saying things that are not true or are unsupported, not that you do not accept any particular theory. But this has nothing to do with religion. Your little rant about religion is just you saying "I don't know why people accept these theories I don't like." Well, the reason they accept them is because of the evidence. The fact that you either don't know what that evidence is, or don't understand why it supports these theories, is just another example of your (wilful) ignorance. You could learn but you choose to stick to your (baseless) beliefs. Indeed. Anyone can come up with ideas. The challenge is then finding a way of testing the idea to see if the evidence supports it. The next challenge is being willing to abandon your favourite idea if the evidence doesn't support it, or accept another idea that the evidence does support. And here is the crux of the matter. On the one hand, we have people who accept scientific theories based on the evidence. On the other, you reject science because you "believe" otherwise. So, who is being religious?

Then you seem to have that the wrong way round. Scientists and those with a good understanding of science understand that models are just models and are not the same as the thing being modelled. It is only people, like yourself, who have only a loose grasp on science gained from popular articles who don't understand how science really works.

Not that I am aware of. There are mathematical functions that (if treated as a rate of growth) would go from a finite to an infinite value in finite time. So if the creation of matter from "nothing" followed such a function, it could become infinite. On the other hand, there are no models based on this, as far as I know. Most people would say that if the universe is infinite now then it must have always been infinite.

It is your stylistic preference. We all have those (and sometime defend them passionately). On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with the old usage of less.

That "rule" was just one writer's preference that was somehow adopted by pedants as an absolute truth. Less has always been used with countables. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003775.html

It has already been a cplainedvthat freefall means that the only force is that of gravity. With no sideways motion, an object in freefall will fall (freely) to the Earth. With sufficient sideways force it can enter a stable orbit. Because the orbital speed does not depend on the mass of the orbiting object, all objects at the same distance fall at the same speed. Therefore (with no force applied) there will be no relative motion. Hence the apparent weightlessness. Is your incoherent rambling about Uranus, perhaps, a reference to the Coriolis force?

It appears you are right. There are some minor restrictions but it seems it should be usable. I need a Windows virtual machine occasionally and I have been stuck with a really old XP license for years. So I will try this out and see how well it works. Thanks

And somewhat eccentric ellipses at that.

It is still wrong. I think it was just a futile attempt to explain some basic schoolboy physics to you. But you are unwilling/unable to learn so we are still going round in circles.

Mechanics and relativity are comatible, so there is no problem there. There is an energy drop. Which is why, for example, the temperature of the cosmic background radiation is redshifted to 2.3 Kelvin when it started out as 2,000 Kelvin. Not sure why that would make it easier to move? The probability of photons landing in particular places. That is the same whether they are single photons occurring individually or a mass of photons at the same time. The description in terms of interference only applies to the classical "electromagnetic wave" description. It is less relevant when you use a description in terms of photons. But this has nothing to do with expanding space. The photon travels in a straight line - and in curved space it travels in the equivalent of a straight line (a null geodesic). There is no "substance" involved, just the effects of geometry.

I agree completely with this. The idea of have "a" consciousness or "a" self seems pretty meaningless. But they are more like rivers (or the wind) than verbs.

I guess if you are just going to repeat the same nonsense, I can only repeat the same reply: Only for a circular orbit: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kepler.html#c5

Fruit flies like a banana.

Only for a circular orbit: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kepler.html#c5

The latter.

Wouldn't that be "w"? English spelling usually preserves the history of words. "One" used to rhyme with "alone".

There is no such link as "Calendar of events". I assume the reason you don't post anything that supports your claim is because you appear to be wrong. Jupiter is visible pretty much every month: http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/visibility.htm

You may think that, but I don't think any intelligent person does. So stop using "we" to describe your own ignorance. And no one with any intelligence or understanding of science thinks that it can.

A common excuse is that those people deserve it. (Which is a pretty horrific attitude, that no decent person should hold.)

That would require you to know what you were talking about. (I'm not sure you even know what the word "semantics" means.)