Strange

The numbers are very important. How can we know that your theory works without them? And we have theories which can calculate all these effects. Yours, apparently, can't. How do you know that without the numbers?

Note that the global birth rate has already dropped below that needed to maintain the world population. Which is why the population will shortly peak and then start dropping. This is not because of birth regulation (which does not work very well and would not be accepted in most countries) but because of improved health, wealth and education (especially for women). Poverty and health are still not great in many parts of the world, but they have improved massively over recent decades and are continuing to do so. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24836917 I recommend watching all of Hans Rosling's videos. Search for them on YouTube or start here: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen http://www.gapminder.org

Logic suggest that because there is an implied premise that matter cannot be in two places at once. And the point of saying that is because logic cannot tell you whether something is true or not, only that it follows from your starting assumptions (which may or may not be true). This seems to be a non sequitur. And light can be perceived at two places simultaneously. Turn on a light in your house and everyone can see. What? Really? I mean, really??

How do you "know it happens"? Where do the numbers come from: What is 38,900w ? What is 750kg ? What is 42,500w ? What is 240kg? How do you get from the above equations to these results? Please show your working.

Gibberish. Why do you need evidence to know that "dark" is a synonym for "absence of light". But if you insist: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dark That is a poor analogy. There is a difference between trying to identify the reason for thunder making no sound and calling the absence of sound "silence". Similarly, there could be all sorts of explanations for there being no light (the electricity has failed, the candle has blown out, your eyes are closed, etc). But "dark" is not an explanation, it is just another word for "no light" in the same way that "silence" is another word for "no sound". I cannot believe you are making such a fuss about the definition of a word.

We can use objective measurements (e.g. a light meter) to quantify how little light there is. This is meaningless and unnecessary verbiage. Dark is, by definition, the absence of light.

English was not "invented". Like all languages it evolved, and is still evolving to meet the needs of its users.

Things with mass may occupy space, but that is not what defines mass. Otherwise mass would always be proportional to volume.

Well, it looks like you figured wrong.

Citation needed.

From what I remember, Relative used to write the most incoherent, nonsensical drug-fuelled drivel with no scientific content. Trying to clarify anything he said is probably a waste of time. I have suggested such a move.

Are you claiming that your model explains gravity rotation curves, that are currently thought to require dark matter? In which case, please show the calculations that prove this. Still waiting...

And, specifically, a "chirp" is a signal where the frequency increases with time. That is always true in science. However, in this case, the waveform matched very precisely the predictions for a signal produced by the merger of two black holes. So, it could be something else that we know nothing about that just happens to look just like something we do know about ... or it could be what it appears to be.

You said light was colourless. It isn't. You may have thought that was what you were saying ... Really? I have no idea what mahogany smells like. Does it even have a smell. Other than a generically wordy one. Well, we know that certain chemical bind to receptors in the vomeronasal organ, which generate nerve impulses to the brain. What do you mean by "deep explanation"? Oh, you are talking about qualia. I see. You could have made things so much simpler if you had just made it clear what you were talking about. This has nothing to do with physics. Maybe you should start a thread in the Philosophy section to discuss this. A stunning insight.

I had absolutely no idea what you were talking about. Food that tastes like mahogany? And what does this have to do with darkness (absence of light)?

You missed the question I asked: Can you show, in detail, how you calculate the time dilation for a GPS satellite with your equation? And when I say "in detail", I mean show all the steps and values used to calculate the value. If P is inversely proportional to X, for example, then you write [latex]P \propto \frac 1 X[/latex]. So why make up new ways of expressing this.

Firstly, general relativity correctly accounts for the 38us difference. You can't just use special relativity in this case. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html Can you show, in detail, how you calculate the value with your theory? Then why don't you just write the equation to show it is inversely proportional. You start with: [latex]\frac P 1 \propto \frac E V[/latex] To make P inversely proportional to the value in the other side, you just invert it: [latex]P \propto \frac V E[/latex] I don't see how you can calculate anything useful from this without knowing the constant of proportionality. In other words, instead of writing: [latex]P \propto \frac V E[/latex] You need: [latex]P = k \frac V E[/latex] Where k is the constant of proportionality. This could also solve the problem that you equation fails dimensional analysis. Is this supposed to be Mc2, as in Einstein's equation? If so, are you aware that this is incomplete? The full equation is [latex]E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2[/latex]

It is just an interpretation of quantum theory. If you argue against it, you are arguing against QM. There are a number of responses to this. There is a popular "zero energy" hypothesis that suggests that the total energy of the universe is zero. So creating copies of the universe requires no energy. The law of conservation of energy says that energy is conserved within each universe. Hence, even if "new matter" were being generated to create new universes, this would not violate conservation of energy. Conservation of energy is not violated since the energy of each branch has to be weighted by its probability, according to the standard formula for the conservation of energy in quantum theory. This results in the total energy of the multiverse being conserved. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation Not really a credible or scientific objection.

By coincidence, I just came across this (while searching for something else): http://www.nature.com/news/history-einstein-was-no-lone-genius-1.18793

I think the original idea came from the study of black holes where it was noted that the entropy of a black hole is proportional to its area not its volume. In string theory, it seems there are analogous results (which I don't even begin to understand). Currently, there is no evidence for this hypothesis: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/12/08/reality-check-the-universe-is-probably-not-a-hologram/ http://backreaction.blogspot.it/2015/12/what-fermilabs-holometer-experiment.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

So, as proteins (and life) exist, what is your explanation?

There are, in most places, checks to prevent this sort of thing. With, I believe, penalties such that it shouldn't be worth risking it. However, the first book on probability theory I read listed a number of potentially winning strategies. One was to bet against the largest bets on the table. If the house is crooked, they will let you win rather than the big bet. (It also pointed out that this is potentially dangerous if they (a) are crooked and (b) notice what you are doing.)

Still making up incoherent nonsense.

It may have been a reference to the recent "firewall" hypothesis? https://phys.org/news/2016-04-hot-problem-black-hole-firewalls.html

The event duration (and the frequencies involved) is what allows the source to be identified as the "inspiral" and merger of two black holes. The frequencies and duration are dependent on the masses of the black holes. The final "ring down" phase after the peak is defined by the mass of the resulting single black hole. In this way, the total energy radiated away as gravitational waves can be estimated. The top half of this image shows the relationship between the black holes and the waveform: