Strange

Does this help: http://chartsbin.com/view/3232 Or this: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WMD2012/MainFrame.html

Assuming your method involves choosing numbers, buying tickets and winning more than you spend (rather than fraud, bribery, hacking into their computers, or something), I don't see how it could be a problem. Do the rules say "if you find a flaw in the system you must notify us"? If your method works, then it can only be because of a flaw in their system. In which case you should (a) keep quiet about it and (b) use it occasionally and buy the tickets from different places - I'm sure they will be monitoring the patterns of wins to identify possible fraud and ... flaws in the system. But why is this under "Politics"?

You are correct. In GR, gravity is not a force. Light has no charge and is not affected by magnetism. Correct. No. This only works for stars that are only just hidden behind the sun. The amount of deflection of light is absolutely minute. So, one way the diagram is wrong is that you cans the curve! If it were drawn accurately, it would be indistinguishable from a straight line. Correct. Correct. You (and anyone else) can imagine all sorts of things that seem to work. But the only way to know if the really work or not is to test them. Assuming that your idea must be right because you can imagine it and it makes sense to you is not science and is not going to convince anyone else. Sorry, but that is just the way it is. The only thing that could disprove it is if you were to produce some testable predictions. And test them. All we can say is we have a model currently that works. We have no reason to think that your model works (other than your faith in it). It does happen at all scales (as far as we know). The problem is the effect is very small (which is why gravity is very weak and even a tiny fridge magnet can hold up a large weight). Because it is very small, we can only easily see it with objects the size of planets, etc. Really precise instruments can detect the gravitational effect of much smaller things. But we certainly can't measure any curvature of space for things like protons and electrons because the effect would be absolutely minute. As far as we know, curvature of space has no significant effect at those scales. What does have a much stronger effect at those scales are other things - electromagnetic forces between oppositely charged protons and electrons, the nuclear force, etc. There have been attempts to describe all these forces in the same way (in terms of curvature). The best known is Kaluza-Klein theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza–Klein_theory Note: this is very, very complicated (I certainly don't understand it). But that is because the geometry of curved spaces is complicated. And the theory has to account for forces that behave completely differently from one another in a unified way. It isn't just made unnecessarily complicated in order to confuse you! So in a sense, you are attempting something sensible with your model (coming up with a single description for all forces) but you can't just insist it is correct without showing that it is. p.s. could you break your posts up into shorter paragraphs. They get really hard to read... Thanks. One problem is that electrons do not have precise locations. They are "fuzzy" in a sense. You may have in mind the old image of an electron orbiting the atom like a little moon. But what actually happens is that the electron is "spread out" in space around the proton (in what is called an "orbital"). However, we can calculate and measure the probability of an electron being at a particular distance. We do know (by measurement) the mass of the proton. And of the electron. And, don't worry, all protons are identical. And all electrons are identical.

It is even used in cosmology (and "in space no one can hear you ...") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_acoustic_oscillations

Polish? IT? In my experience, there is a high probability they are pulling your leg! I think it was irony.

They don't need to be favoured in pre-biotic conditions. I understand it perfectly. It just happens to be a lie. Of course you are. Some of the questions regarding abiogenesis have plausible answers. But, not surprisingly, the questions that don't currently have answers ... don't have answers. Congratulations on that stunning insight. The fact the we don't currently have those answers doesn't make it impossible or that your favourite divinity did it. If you were honestly interested in science, you wouldn't have this "science knows nothing because there are some unanswered questions" attitude. Instead, you might be asking what mechanisms might be possible, or what research could help us find these answers, or ... But instead you have the typical Creationist attitude of "we don't know therefore it is impossible [therefore my god did it]". That is simplistic, naive and appears to be dishonest. You are clearly anti-science and almost certainly a Creatinist. I'm not sure why so many of you hide behind the "I was only asking questions" smoke screen. Do you think it makes you appear charmingly naive? It doesn't. It just makes you appear duplicitous and dishonest. So, if you reject any scientific hypotheses and research related to abiogenesis, and you are not a Cretinist, how do you explain the existence of life? It's a mystery to me, so I would love to hear what suggestions you have. Or is it impossible and therefore we don't exist?

That is not "even more complicated". That is exactly what was explained. I didn't claim anything. I was just pointing out that we can only see things in 2D and so cannot resolve the Z (depth) direction at all. I'm afraid I don't understand that at all. (Although, we can be fairly certain that anything you write beginning with "if I understand it correctly..." is wrong.) How did you try this? Can you show the results you got?

Actually, we do have several clues. We just don't have the old story. Not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing. Well, you clearly aren't interested in the scientific approach so that only leaves ... (And your repeated lies and straw man arguments are also symptomatic of being a Creationist.)

I doubt those details would be in an outline.

If you can tell a baby is content, why isn't it evidence that babies can be content? (Hopefully, we are getting past "yes it is", "not it isn't" now. )

Or that you thought was impossible before then!

So you agree that it is possible to tell that baby is contented?

So you think it is impossible to tell if a baby is content or distressed?

Good experimental design can cope with issues like that. And, if not, quantify the level of error introduced.

There are two things here. At one level, both dark matter and dark energy are names for something unknown that causes an observed effect. So in that sense they are both "true". In the case of dark matter, the evidence is now fairly overwhelming that it is some form of matter (or something that behaves very much like some form of matter). However, people are (of course) still looking at alternatives such as modified gravity. And people are looking at a whole range of possible explanations for the effects attributed to "dark energy". Some of these also involve changes to gravity. As far as I know, it is much too early to draw any conclusions.

So it is impossible to assume your dog is dreaming?

Dark energy is just a placeholder for whatever turns out to be the explanation. This could some form of energy, it could be a change to the way gravity works, it could be something else. Citation needed. It isn't pushing against anything. It just changes the energy density of the universe, which changes the rate of expansion. Expansion doesn't happen because things are pushed apart. It would be more accurate to think of them as just drifting apart (because that is the natural thing to do in the absence of force). Expansion (and the acceleration) is isotropic (as far as I know) so it would require an even distribution of external mass pulling on the universe. At which point, it all cancels out as Newton showed. And there is no "outside" of the universe anyway (as far as we know). Dark matter.

And why shouldn't any other computing device be able to "think recursively"?

1. How do you know it can describe all these forces? As you have no math, it is just a guess. My guess is that it can't. 2. The math (GR) says that the light curves towards mass, not away: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#Explanation_in_terms_of_space.E2.80.93time_curvature More detail here, as you complain we haven't shown the math: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing_formalism More discussion here if you want to learn (instead of making up fairy tales): http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html So you didn't really want the math. Ho hum. And overview here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Gravitational_lensing Also, there are many other tests that confirm GR gives accurate results (see the rest of the page linked above). It is not possible that it would somehow give the correct results for everything else, but somehow get lensing wrong.

They must be different because they measured different elapsed times ("number of transitions") at the end of the experiment. I am not aware that the orientation of a moving atomic clock has any effect on it. Do you have some evidence this is the case? I suppose one could invent a different arbitrary (and unsupported) excuse for relativity passing each and every experimental test. But it might be easier to just accept that the theory works.

Why do you think these are different?

Can you provide any evidence to support this model? Can you use your model to calculate the altitude of a geostationary satellite? Does your model explain the anomalous precession of Mercury? Does your model explain gravitational lensing? And does the predicted amount match observation? Can you post text instead of images in future, it makes it much easier to read and discuss.

There is also the limited resolution and accuracy of observations to take into account. For example, this page (http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/tables/MilkyWayCentralStars.html) says that the stars can be observed with a resolution of 0.025 arc seconds. That is about 200 AU, which is many, many times larger than the star. Also, they could appear to be (nearly) coincident even if they are a long way away from each other if one is in front of or behind the other.

No. But you introduced the word. I don't know who introduced the "sleeping" bit. But it is usually easy to tell is a baby or an animal is content (feel free to add "only when they are awake" if you insist). Therefore it doesn't appear to be a learned thing.

The math and evidence already disproves it. We have a theory of gravitation that describes how light behaves near massive objects. This has been tested and it is correct. Your idea says something different and therefore it is wrong. How can it describe any these things without math? Can you tell us anything about atoms or atomic nuclei or the structure of protons that isn't already known? Or are you just fitting known information into your story?