Strange

This is school, not university. In the UK, graduation is only uses for getting a degree-level qualification (or similar). University leavers would be called graduates.

People who have (just) left school.

You may be right. In which case it is yet another case of the OP not knowing what fallacies are.

And the alternative is?

No he isn't. You are very fond of accusing people of logical fallacies. (And you use quite a few yourself.)

16 then?

So either you are wrong or life can't exist. And yet life exists.

I was simply pointing out that no great new breakthroughs in science (nor probably any other subject) have been made by those who are largely ignorant of the subject. You know seem to be using the Galileo Gambit ("They laughed at ..."). Well, first you would need to provide some evidence, rather than pure fantasy. There are many experiments that are either inconsistent with the existence of an aether (of any kind) or simply do not require it. No part of relativity supports the existence of an aether. If you think so, then it is up to you to provide that evidence. As you have not shown that relativity has a paradox, this argument fails. (Note that making up something that has nothing to do with relativity does not falsify relativity.) So your arguments are either wrong or unsupported. P.S. Google says "Nor results found" when I search for "Human Group Fallacy". Perhaps this is something else you have made up?

Citation needed. There are signs of ritualistic ("religious") behaviour in very early societies, which suggests it might be an innate characteristic of humans. There are also religions with no hierarchy. So I am not convinced that it was "imposed" by a minority. Your last few posts may explain why.

I have seen a suggestion that a better Turing test would be to use photos of impossible situations and get the test subject to explain them.

Of course not (otherwise we would have lost the ability to communicate by now). Users improve language constantly by adjusting it to fit to their needs.

If you use Wolfram Alpha you can type very high-level calculations. For example, if you want to calculate the energy equivalent of the mass of the Earth, just type "mass of earth * c^2": http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mass+of+earth+*+c%5E2 This will give you 5.367544 x 1041 J And note that if you ask for the answer in watts ("mass of earth * c^2 in watts") it will tell you that you can't do that ("the results are not compatible").

Yes, I built a new house. Amazingly, it later turned out that there was a new house in exactly the place I built it. I must be clairvoyant.

He has studied physics, so obviously he doesn't write about "aether". Unless he were writing about the history of science (and all those mistaken ideas) or the psychology of crackpottery. In other words, you believe in nonsense because you don't know better. And because you don't understand how science works, you think personal beliefs have as much weight as evidence. In common with the OP, apparently. But at least he has the naivety of youth as an excuse. There is still a chance for him to learn some critical thinking skills and acquire an understanding of basic science.

So it is OK to say a group of people are not human if it is "just an opinion"? You are not a bigot if your bigotry is "just an opinion"? I'm sure all sorts of minority groups will be very reassured by the fact all the attacks they endure are "just an opinion".

You are a very sensible 14! I was quite surprised when I saw some of your posts about school. No, that's not true. I was very surprised!

But you don't even have a power of 2 in your "equation" so it i not an inverse square. So I assume what you really mean is: [latex]P \propto \frac 1 {{energy}^2}[/latex] But, of course, it is impossible to calculate P from this because it is not an equation. So what you really need is: [latex]P = \frac k {{energy}^2}[/latex] Where k is some (unknown) constant of proportionality. However, we know from experiments that such an equation is wrong. In the vicinity of a non-rotating massive spherically symmetric object (e.g. the Earth) time dilation is described by: [latex]t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}}[/latex] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation And this is confirmed by experiment, including GPS satellites.

Sigh. Why would someone so ignorant and distrustful of science even join a science forum?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

When i was in my thirties, I decided to go back to university and study for a masters in a new field that I had got interested in. I could barely afford it and wasn't sure I would be able to get a job at the end of it. It was one of the best things I ever did, though. The course was fantastic and it was great to go back to study with a more mature (slightly) attitude. I did get a job afterwards (although not actually doing what I had just studied) but it would have been worth doing anyway.

Maybe the title could be changed to "I hereby advertise my ignorance of science"

So, from this we can deduce you are, what, 14? And an immature 14 at that.

Well, obviously, we can't know that. But all our models assume that we are not in a special place in the universe and that, therefore, it will look the same (homogenous and isotropic) wherever you are. The rest of your post is incoherent and ignorant gibberish. Please stop posting this sort of nonsense. The big bang model is a description of the gradual cooling of the universe. It was not an instant and has nothing to do with awareness. The rest of your post is incoherent and ignorant gibberish. That appears to be true of pretty much all of your posts.

You could also concede that your "equation" is not an equation and cannot be used to calculate anything (because it has [latex]\propto[/latex] rather than =). Also, your claim that time dilation is inversely proportional to mass+energy is shown to be wrong experimentally. How about you go back to school and do an introduction to physics and a first year course in algebra.

Because you are posting ignorant drivel. Starting with "I understand how light works" (which is obviously not true) and it goes downhill from there. No.