Strange

Yep, black hole mergers require massive simulations to understand their behaviour.

1. Of course it is. 2. We use the cosmological constant to match the data. That is what science does. "He had already said that this is a big mistake." He didn't have the data we gave now. "However, if we can prove our current mathematical theory by using Einstein general relativity equation, without the cosmology constant ..." We can't. Because it doesn't match the data without it. "then the answer had already been given by Einstein." It is only crackpots who fetishize Einstein like this. Not scientists.

Theories are never proven. And certainly not by equations. They can only be confirmed or disproved by evidence. So if it was found that expansion is not accelerating (the observations were mistaken, an alternative explanation is found, or ...) then the constant would be set back to zero.

Gravity

There is a neat graph of the effects of orbital velocity vs gravityational effects here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation

That explains a lot. I cannot understand why some people think that making up stuff is just as valid as learning. Maybe it is just laziness.

As it matches the evidence he would do the same. Ha ha ha ha. Seriously, that is not how science works. It advances by overthrowing the "fathers". The discoverers did get Nobel Prizes. Because it matches what we observe (the same reason it was set to zero previously).

You don't and we aren't.

1. He did. Why do you think he didn't? 2. What's the difference? Adding the constant because he thought the universe was static, was the mistake. Meaning that he could have been more imaginative / braver and predicted the expanding universe before anyone else. If the equation can be updated once based on new information then it can be updated again, when there is more new data.

Quite the reverse. Static = unchanging (not expanding).

Like we have photos of muons, neutrinos, quarks, gluons, W and Z bosons, photons, and electrons.

Looks more like a high level of impurities. The picture may say the opposite but that doesn't stop vitamin C actually being ascorbic acid. It is a single compound and so does not (cannot) contain bio-flavonoids.

Not really. Why would someone who is woefully (and deliberately) ignorant be expected to understand the models and data supporting particle physics? You reject the "easy explanation" as not containing any evidence. You reject the evidence as being too complex. So, once again, you have put yourself in a position where nothing can change your mind. You are an arrogant troll. No one mentioned virtual particles.

I think there are two possible answers (I'm not sure which is more accurate). 1. The gluons in a proton do travel at the speed of light (within the proton). 2. They are "virtual gluons" as force carriers and are not constrained to travel at (or even below) the speed of light. Good quick thread about virtual particles here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/105297-why-are-virtual-particles-called-such/

In science it means everything. (But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, as you think your fevered imaginings have equal weight to actual science.)

As you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about, it might be a good idea to learn something before making inane comments like that. We can observe the effects of the Higgs field, in just the same way as we can observe the effects of gravity (photons are massless, W and Z bosons have mass, etc.). And we can directly detect the existence of the associated boson. But feel free to keep putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA".

As you are incapable of writing anything that makes sense, I have suggested that you are put on the moderation queue so you don't fill the forum with gibberish and waste the time of the intelligent members.

Of course not. Don't be silly. But you can look at the data. https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214 https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7235

Photons are bosons. They have particular properties (mass, spin, charge, etc) which can be predicted by the standard model. The same is true for the Higgs boson. So detecting a particle with the predicted properties but then claiming it is something else, an unknown thing with exactly the same properties, seems perverse. As they say, if it walks like a duck ...

This is an interesting but complicated question. It requires information from history, archeology, historical linguistics, genetics, etc. There is some info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation#/media/File:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation#/media/File:World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering

So the fact that the standard model works is evidence for all components of the model, including the Higgs mechanism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism And the detection of the associated boson, confirms it. https://home.cern/topics/higgs-boson

Good. I look forward to seeing you do that. Until you have done the calculations you mention above, you don't have a model.

Firstly, nothing is proved in science. However, the existence of the Higgs field is not subjective imagination. It is an essential part of the standard model. This was recently confirmed by the discovery of the Higgs boson. If this had not happened, the standard model would have needed to be completely rethought (which would have been pretty exciting, so a lot of people were a bit disappointed that it was confirmed).

You can't really treat Africa as single entity in questions like this. It is a very diverse continent with some countries having reasonable standards of living, education and health, while others are still struggling. One contributor to the problems that some African countries have had (and some still have) has been poor and/or corrupt governments. I recommend watching all of Hans Rosling's videos to get a more balanced view of the world.

This is a big topic. I suggest reading something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System And then asking more specific questions. I would guess these were issues with the receiver rather than the GPS system itself.