Strange

Both dark matter as matter and as modified gravity ARE being looked at. Until we have definitive answer they will both continue to be developed and tested (i.e. by doing science). In fact, because this is science, people will continue to question and test both ideas even after we have a "definitive" answer. There is nothing untestable about any of the dark matter hypotheses.

Of course not. Infinity, in mathematics, is larger than any number (informally). I don't see how 0 fits that role. Nope. The chance of the next flip has a 50% chance of being tails. It isn't paradoxical to us. I'm wondering if you know what the word "paradox" means. You can believe that, of course. But I don't see any reason why anyone else should. Do you have anything other your belief? Rational argument, maybe?

An awful lot of assertions and little use of evidence or logic... Is this an idea for an SF story?

How is that a paradox? And what does it have to do with infinity? You seem to have destroyed your own hypothesis (if this is a paradox).

Please provide a reference that says it is important to prove this. Please provide a reference that says this is the most important data? How can one sample be more important than the others? And yet you insist they are wrong. Odd. It means the value is not as accurate as thought.

"There is a barber in my town who cuts the hair of everyone who does not cut their own." "This statement is false." I can't think of many paradoxes involving infinity. Can you give an example?

A coincidence means two or more things happening at the same time. So what else happened?

As your "conclusion" is based on nothing but random guesses (no evidence, no theory, nothing) I don't have any problem rejecting it. You are asking what they would have done if the data had been different ? I guess they might have done something different.

Well, it certainly doesn't make much sense. It seems to be one of those bits of made-up nonsense that gives psychology a bad name. I don't know if has been debunked, but I think it has been much criticised. The Wikipedia article has some info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Research

Wow. You are right. I hadn't come across this before: [Ctrl-C ... Ctrl-V] https://phys.org/news/2016-12-short-lived-tetraneutron.html Fascinating stuff. There is no connection between the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism. If you could only provide a link to one of these articles ... It implies energy and momentum. Not mass. Photons have zero mass. That is why the move at the speed of light. And no one is on the fence about this. You are thinking of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which limits the accuracy with which the position and momentum of a particle can be known. There are other complementary pairs, such as energy and time. But weight (mass) and velocity are not a complementary pair. The mass of an electron is know. It is always the same. And, as we can measure the velocity of an electron as accurately as we wish, we can know both the mass and velocity.

Easy: I don't know. However, I don't assume that because I don't know, the experts must be wrong. That would be insane, wouldn't it?

Please provide a reference to scientists bing in a panic? Where di you read this? No. That is not clear to anyone.

You need to provide a reference to this. It is impossible to comment on something which is almost certainly being wrongly described. Magnetism plys NO role in holding an atom together. You go the the address bar of you browser, select all the address (use Ctrl-A), come back here and paste the link (Ctrl-V). I have tried searching and found no such article. So you are obviously confused/mistaken about what it said. I guess you might be thinking of the recent tetraquak discoveries. https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/07/lhcb-unveils-new-particles There is no doubt: photons do NOT have mass. And there is no doubt about the wave-particle thing either. There is no problem knowing both of these. Given the level of ignorance or confusion shown in this one post, it is hard to imagine why we should take you seriously.

Neither of those descriptions are very accurate. The latter is completely wrong. Objects and particles do not, in general, emit gravitational waves. It takes a very particular type of asymmetrical system to produce gravitational waves. If you idea is based upon these assumptions then it is dead on arrival.

And are you saying that, therefore, babies cannot be content? So, on the one hand, you say that you can tell that your dog's mind is not at rest ("dreaming") but at the same time you say that assumptions about the state of the mind has no real meaning. It just seems a little contradictory.

Except for the ones where it isn't. Which is paradoxical, really.

I can't hear anyone say China now without thinking of that.

Why not try reading them and find out. (Clue: of course they do. Because it doesn't.) Nonsense. Please stop posting your ignorant twaddle in the science forums. Note that the OP requested that this wasn't hijacked by irrelevant stuff (i.e. anything you might say).

Yes. It is contradicted by all existing theory. There is no reason to think that large black holes explode. Also, there is no evidence that white holes exist. p.s. Sorry to disappoint. But this isn't a very original idea. It comes up fairly regularly on forums like this.

If you would like to watch Donald Trump say the word “China” 234 times then... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-says-china_us_55e06f30e4b0aec9f352e904

For example, imagine you roll 10 sixes in a row (with fair dice). What is the probability of the next roll being a six?

Because: Yes.

No. But a textbook on probability theory might be a good investment! If you have found a flaw in the system that you can exploit, the worst they can do is spot it and fix it.

If coincidences never happened then that would be really odd. And a little bit scary.

Gravitation does arise in tiny objects like dust particles. This is well know. However, it is a very, very small force because they have very small masses (that is partly offset by the fact that they are close together). So things like electrostatic forces can be much more important, as in the article you quote. You give no reason why you think their explanation is wrong. However, it is gravity that causes clouds of gas and dust to collapse and forms stars and planets. This is already well explained by existing theory. How does your model improve on that? Especially given that existing theory is highly mathematical and can make testable predictions but all you have is some pictures. Do we? I don't know any such thing. Do you have any evidence for that?