Strange

Rope?

This is a consequence of the model of expansion. The model is consistent with all the evidence we have. But, actually, if you were to draw a pattern of dots with one at the centre and then animate it so that every dot moved away from the centre at a speed that was proportional to its distance from the centre, then you would find that all dots moved away from one another in the same way. So you choose any other dot as the centre and nothing would change. (You could test this with a small number of dots and drawings, if it isn't immediately obvious why.)

Can you give an example of someone who thinks their own religion is not the true religion? ("I know it is wrong, but I am going to believe it anyway")

Which is because there is no force involved. (I was going to add this as another example, but had a horrible feeling it might just confuse David Levy). So, strictly speaking in free-fall you are not accelerating in GR terms. When you are sitting still in your chair and feel the chair pushing against you, that is when you are accelerating! Imagine a galaxy that is about 14 billion light years away when a photon is emitted. So the photon has 14 billion light years to travel. After 7 billion years, it should be half way, but in that time the distance to the galaxy has roughly doubled and so the photon, which has travelled half the distance, still has 14 billion light years to travel. After another 7 billion years, it has travelled half that distance but the distance has doubled again and so it still has 14 billion light years to go! And so on. (Note that these numbers are for illustrative purposes only [as they say in adverts] or, in other words, wrong. But hopefully they illustrate the principle. You would need to integrate the expansion over the period of travel [i think] to get the right numbers.)

As velocity is relative, this is exactly the same thing. If you are stationary and observe an electron (for example) moving at near c, that is exactly the same as you moving at near c and observing a stationary electron.

Nope. He didn't say that. They didn't "regress". The evolved to use a different environment. Why on Earth would you think that? There is no evidence that people were less smart before the invention of writing. Do you have any evidence for that?

The difference is that neither galaxy is actually moving "through space"; the separation is due to increase in the amount of space between them. One way of seeing this is to consider the fact that as the distance increases then the speed of separation increases but there is no acceleration. You can tell this is the case, because acceleration means a force is applied (you can tell when your car accelerates because you are pushed back into your seat) and there is no fore in this case.

DNA has no direct role in photosynthesis. There are already attempts to use artificial photosynthesis for power generation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis https://www.sciencealert.com/artificial-photosynthesis-could-power-homes-in-a-few-years-say-australian-researchers And variations: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/turning-energy-plants-produce-usable-electricity-180955110/ I think it was a cryptic reference to the sun.

And how do you tell the difference?

And one of us understand it and one doesn't. Why do you think that might be?

It is different in that the twin paradox describes something that really happens, as described by SR, while yours is a fairy tale that has no basis in theory or reality.

It isn't anything to do with the twins paradox. It is just some meaningless nonsense that you made up. Because I think it is a terrible medium of communication (especially for technical material). And I have to go out of my way to be able to watch them. And because most of them are not worth watching.

I didn't watch more than a few seconds of your video (which, for me, is exceptional; I normally refuse to watch videos completely). It is an analogy for your monumentally stupid "grandmother paradox". Really? But you "forgot" (instantly) the bit where I said "The "proofs" you have provided on the forum ..."

One obvious difference is that we had language for a long time before we invented writing.

And this is the other problem. You assume you know it all and science is wrong so you skim through complex material that needs hours or days of work. You pick out a phrase or two and misunderstand it completely. For example: You don't even read what people here write. That is discourteous as well unproductive.

So you need to understand what the equations mean, what they describe, in order to get "the big picture". No you haven't. The "proofs" you have provided on the forum have been equivalent to "Physics says that the sky is green but when I look at it, I see it is blue therefore physics is wrong". In other words, they are straw man arguments. (I assume the others in your video are similarly inane and baseless.)

I don't know why you think there should be a problem with this. If you take the equation for velocity that Mordred provided: [latex]v=\sqrt{ 2 g h}[/latex] And substitute for v in the equation for kinetic energy: [latex]e = \frac 1 2 m v^2[/latex] [latex]e = \frac 1 2 m {(\sqrt{2 g h})}^2[/latex] [latex]e = \frac 1 2 m 2 g h[/latex] [latex]e = m g h[/latex] In other words, the equation for potential energy.

The difference is due to both relative velocity and difference in gravity. (You can think of these as SR and GR, but actually GR is a more general theory that includes both effects.) If it weren't for the curvature of space-time, then you would not fall to Earth - there would not even be a straight-line path. I tried a very simple, high-level analogy. If that doesn't work for you, I suggest you work through this: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/ There is a lot of math but I think you can get something from it, even if you skip that.

You "see" the curvature as the effect we call "gravity". Yes it does. Which is why GPS satellites have to compensate for it. I have no idea where you get that from. Why not try and learn, instead of making up nonsense.

Why do you always insist you are right, even when you are talking about things you don't understand. It is very frustrating. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exponential_equation

It doesn't have a density. It is just a set of measurements; in other words, geometry. That doesn't make it wrong. Here is an analogy that might help. Imagine two people standing a few feet apart at the equator. They then start walking due North. As they go, they will gradually get closer together (look at the lines of longitude to see why). There is no force, but they are effectively drawn together. In this analogy, the lines of longitude represent the time dimension (everything moves along that). The presence of mass cause curvature of space-time that causes things to get closer together as they move forward in time.

Of course, petrol is short for petroleum. So exactly analogous the formation of the word gas.

Great. Then can you present it here.

Or they start off being interested but are made to feel they shouldn't by by their peers, their teachers, their parents, and/or society in general. The problem is that there is no reason to think that it does reflect the general inclination of women (I realise I am very late to this discussion, and many of the problems have already been highlighted). So the problems with "20%" are that it indicates some serious problems with the way girls and women are treated, that a lot of people are not getting to pursue the career they want, and that the contributions of a lot of potentially brilliant people are being lost.

Words can have more than one meaning, you know. Gas can mean an "air-like fluid" or "a shorthand term for gasoline" or "to chase" or ... People have invented a new word ("gas") because they needed something shorter than the rather long-winded gasoline. (Why they couldn't just call it petrol, like the rest of us, I don't know.)