Strange

I don't think that is true. People go on anger management courses, for example, with some success. Or maybe you misunderstand the word "control"?

I suspect many / most people here have looked at creationism long enough to find out that it is NOT SCIENCE and therefore irrelevant. There is no point "going through the gate" if you are interested in science. And if you are not interested in science, but only in unsupported beliefs, then you are already on the other side of the fence. But, hey, maybe you are afraid that the evidence would contradict your beliefs. So, the question really is, have YOU ever considered abandoning your beliefs and looking at the evidence.

Please provide evidence that a devil exists. Please provide evidence that this devil has any influence on the world.

What does that sound like? And how do you know that is what it was?

I think that what Dawkins actually says is that just looking at selection at the level of groups or individuals cannot explain all behaviours. But looking at election at the level of genes (where the individuals and populations are just mechanisms for carrying those genes) is a better (more general) explanation.

But they are clearly designed not to be useful but simply to appear high on search results. Surely, no one really needs "advice" like: decide what you want and then look for it. I was looking for reviews and information about household appliances recently and nearly all the top search results were of this form. And, of course, because of the way online ads work, they got paid every time I looked at one of these pages to see if there was anything useful.

The trouble with English spelling is that no one proposed or planned it. It just happened. And, largely, it reflects the etymology and older pronunciations. Sorry. It was not intended that way. I apologise if it came across like that. I just thought it was quite an amusing concept.

Why would you think that?

Good point. We should start teaching them to count from 3 and only go on to the more advanced 1 and 2 later. Maybe at university.

If you create a blog that a lot of people read and you place adverts (via Google or another such ad agency) on the site then you may earn something. Some people make a living doing this. They normally have multiple blogs and post "fascinating" articles such as "How to choose the best washing machine" full of helpful advice such as "decide what features you want and find a machine with those features" or "decide what your budget is and find a machine that costs less than that". Being able to write is not a requirement.

Why not calculate the relative effects of the thicker atmosphere and the fact that the energy is spread out over a larger area. Then you can see for yourself which is more significant. You could. But that would be insane.

Maybe you should consider that there may be other massive gaps in your knowledge. Because there are. You appear to be profoundly ignorant and seem to have missed any sort of education and, rather than lecturing people, you should spend some time studying.

One hemisphere is tllted towards the Sun and gets more radiation The other hemisphere is tilted away and gets less. Again, this is normally explained at primary school. Presumably you missed school completely. That explains a lot.

"Your recent additions to Talk:Geomagnetic reversal have been removed as the comments were not about article improvement." Why don't you draw the radial lines from the Sun at the distance of the Earth? I think you will find they are pretty much parallel.

Who said anything about bouncing radar off the sun? I doubt that is possible. But distance is not irrelevant: radar is used to measure distance (that is what the D stands for). You criticise others for not being relevant when they talk about the topic of your thread. But then you post nonsense about bouncing radar off the sun, the spice girls and saints. What is wrong with you?

Orbital distances of planets are known from Newton's law. The distances to planets can be measured by parallax and by direct radar measurements. From that, the distance to the Sun can be calculated. Also, we have sent spacecraft to several planets, which also allows us to confirm the distances. Here are some simple explanations (but perhaps not simple enough for you): https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-solar-system/planet-distances.html http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/87-how-do-you-measure-the-distance-between-earth-and-the-sun-intermediate

Or, to put it another way: The Mail again prints lies to support their political agenda. Did they blame immigrants or women for it?

They do when the distinction needs to be made. For example, there was some recent research that suggested that there was no singularity (not surprising) and so the universe is infinitely old. This was softened headlined in the press as "No Big Bang". One very good article describing the research drew a clear distinction between the big bang meaning some "initial event" (for which we have zero evidence) and the big bang model that explains the ongoing expansion from an early hot dense state (for which we have a ton of evidence). Most physicists disagree. There is no physical mechanism for that. That is why the discovery of the CMB was the end of the various steady-state models. Stop posting meaningless nonsense and stick to asking questions. "Space coming into existence expands space" That is completely tautological. Space increasing/expanding between things means exactly the same as "space coming into existence". So you are saying that expanding space causes expanding space. And galaxies do not free fall away from each other. And the speed of separation is only 3c at one specific distance. Making up stuff is not the same as coming to a scientific conclusion based on all the evidence. If you did that, you would end up with a model like the big bang model. Alfven was wrong about several things including this and the nature of quasars. Although Hoyle never acknowledged it, this model was destroyed by the existence of the CMB. No one has come up with an alternative explanation for a perfect black body spectrum with that temperature. The odd thing is, I have seen very few religious people embrace the big bang model as proof of their creation story. Some seem to accept it as good science, some don't care either way, and a few reject it as some sort of atheist plot. I'm not sure I follow the logic of the latter view.

What problems do you think would be solved adopting a geocentric model? Can you be more specific than "the current state of cosmology".

Is "cheese" a nickname for some sort of hallucinogenic drug?

What do you mean by "balance happens again"? If you are referring to the fact that the scales can find a stable, but unbalanced, position then my guess is that this is due to imperfections in the mechanism, friction, rotational forces, etc. Trying to use GR to explain this is probably overkill.

There are very few examples of scientific theories that turn out to be completely wrong. About the only ones I can think of are phlogiston and the steady state universe. The latter was really just an assumption (like the cosmological principle), not a theory. It turned out to be wrong.

Not my area of expertise but doesn't relativistic field theory (the Dirac equation) take mass into account?

Maybe because you only read pop sci stories? I am not a cosmologist, not even a scientist, but I have seen several papers questioning various aspects and f the Big Bang model. (And most [all?] multiverse theories are variations of the Big Bang, not alternatives, anyway.) Perhaps because the evidence for the Big Bang model is overwhelming. And the theoretical basis (GR) is extremely well supported. Finding a viable alternative is going to be very difficult. I don't know what role you want intuition to play, beyond what it does now. It obviously can't replace objective evidence. "Current situation"? What does that mean? One of the biggest "problems" at the moment is the lack of evidence for anything that could replace/extend the Big Bang or the standard model. Also, inflation is just one hypothesis (NOT theory) to explain some evidence. There is no overwhelming evidence for it. And there are alternatives. So...

Because that is what science does. Scrutinise and test everything. Not take anything for granted. Not let assumptions go untested. Not allow intuition to go untested. Etc. As it has been widely covered the scientific and popular press (not to mention the internet), "they" appear to doing a crap job of keeping it secret. It isn't sacred and is constantly challenged. Why on Earth would you think otherwise? Because there isn't any evidence for your beliefs?