Strange

"Employee" (for the UK, at least). And, again for the UK, I think I would use "as a contractor" rather than freelance.

Far more likely: there is no effect.

And, of course, you have evidence for this?

You could try doing a search for: usa 1800 text corpus (or corpora) Or try a linguistics forum/blog. Good luck!

I think that might be a language problem. My guess is, he meant "the only property of space is dimensions" which, although oddly phrased, I think I would agree with.

And, of course, you have evidence that this happens regularly?

I don't think that citing a paper from a conspiracy-theory site is a good way to counter charges of it being a conspiracy-theory. Quite the reverse in fact. Unfortunately, the list of predatory journals has been taken off line, but I am pretty confident the source of that paper would have been on the list.

As science is all about models, and these can never be 100% accurate nor 100% proven, then science cannot be a search for "ultimate truth" by your own definitions. No, it proceeds by turning observations into hypotheses and hypotheses into theories. It seems you are using "belief" in the sense of "an idea based on knowledge and evidence". That is not what I think the word means. If you use words in unexpected ways you will, inevitably, get people disagreeing with you.

The things you imagine might be speculation, but there are multiple scientific hypotheses for nearly all parts of the processes that may be involved. These are not "speculation"; in the sense that they are based on known physics, chemistry, biochemistry, conditions in the early Earth, etc. "Don't know" is a perfectly valid scientific answer. Not knowing every single step in the process, or not knowing for certain exactly which hypothesis could be correct, does not mean that we know nothing. Nor does it mean that abiogenesis is impossible. It has exactly the same questions that any other version of the origin of life has. So according to you, it is completely unsupported.

Only if you have either some evidence for that repulsive gravity or a formulation of that alternative theory that is consistent with GR (i.e. reality). Just saying that invisible pink unicorns (or some other unknown theory) could produce anti-gravity is not science, it is pure speculation. There are many ways that GR could be extended. Some of these are scientific: i.e. based on mathematics and known physics, and consistent with observation. For example, all the MOND type theories and their relativistic versions. Those are scientific. Most of the suggestions we get on forums like this (involving aether, for example) are just pseudoscientific nonsense.

It is not "correct". It is just a stylistic choice. There are examples where including the last comma introduces ambiguity. You can find a link to the "expert" view in my post #42. You will see that they do not consider one or other to be "correct".

This technique is already used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaseous_fire_suppression The biggest risks have already been mentioned: suffocation and injuries caused by sudden pressure changes. It is not clear that this can work outside of an enclosed environment.

Are you ashamed of being a Creationist, then? As I said, there is no point. I didn't make either of those claims. So more dishonest Creationist tactics. Well done. Yes. You haven't mentioned any abiogenesis hypotheses, apart from Cretinist caricatures and straw man arguments. And gaps does not mean "wrong". The whole "I'm just asking" trick that people like you use is pretty dishonest.

Absolutely right. There is a good summary here, with a simple equation to calculate the density of a black hole: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/86-the-universe/black-holes-and-quasars/general-questions/423-what-is-the-density-of-a-black-hole-advanced

And to be scared of your creator, who is vengeful and jealous.

With this many dishonest statements collected together, I have to assume you are very religious. Sad. -The supposed abundant availability of organic precursors for complex molecules. These are observed in many places, including outer space. -The total lack of all relevant complex molecules necessary for life. Ditto. -The way these could be put into a functional system. -The most important one --> life originating from non-life. Simple fact: it is unobserved All that means is that we have a number of hypotheses, rather than a theory. As you are so keen on defending the scientific method, I'm sure you will understand that. - and cannot be replicated with experimental setups. Which is by definition contrary to the scientific method. Or maybe you just don't know how science works. There are many things studied by science which cannot be reproduced. The big bang, star formation, the climate, ... Also, you left a "yet" out that final objection. Which pretty much invalidates it, by itself. p.s. You raised some interesting questions for discussion, but by revealing yourself to be a Creationist (but not admitting to it) there is little point to discussing anything.

https://scholar.google.it/scholar?q=dna+matching+algorithm There are software tools available for this, such as BLAST: https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLAST The DNA molecule is not a simple helix. It wouldn't fit in the cell if it were (the human genome is hundreds of kilometres long). It is folded very compactly and the way it is folded changes over time to allow different parts of the genome to be accessed. This is a very active area of research. That is a hypothesis or guess. It could become a theory when you show the mathematics and the supporting evidence.

We use mathematics all the time to work out how things will behave: apples falling from trees, the operation of your computer, planets orbiting stars, electric motors in cars, star clusters in galaxies. But feel free to point out the error in their mathematics. On the other hand, if you keep saying "it must be wrong because I am incapable of understanding it" then I will have to report you as a troll. Why do you think they are drifting inwards? I don't know how to respond to a comment as monumentally stupid as this. Do you think apples fall to the ground because the Earth is lonely and they feel sorry for her? Your source for this mass only mentions the Milky Way's black hole. What is your source for "That is based on very accurate measurements from many accretion disks at spiral galaxies"? Or are you just making stuff up again. Nonsense. That is a description of how much mass is currently in the accretion disk. Articles that you have referenced say that in the past, the black hole was more active (had much more mass in its accretion disk). Many galaxies contain active nuclei, with massive accretion disks. So, you have this completely the wrong way round. The amount of "food" available is (currently) limited to the outflow of gas from nearby stars. If more "food" becomes available, then it will fall into the large "mouth". This is only limited by the heat generated by friction as the material falls in which blows some of the material way. Really? I mean, really?? It wouldn't hurt you to do some research: "Thus, the total mass loss each year is about (2–3)×10−14 solar masses,[27] or about one billion kilograms per second. This is equivalent to losing a mass equal to the Earth every 150 million years.[28]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind#Solar_wind_acceleration Yes in the paper you cited earlier. But you are now ignoring because you don't like what it says. Please show your calculations, in the same level of detail as those who show that this can happen. I think I will put you back on Ignore, reading this level of stupidity is bad for the health.

It doesn't appear to make any sense at all. I recommend learning a little bit about current cosmological theories before trying to invent your own.

Who says it is stable? Who says it can't be trusted? Even if it were stable, and you multiply it by the number of years, you cannot use that to conclude there should be no stars. Because: 1. New stars are created 2. Stars can migrate to new positions. (Does that sound familiar?) http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/318054/pdf (Does that sound familiar?) Black holes don't "want" to do anything. Black holes don't put any effort into the formation of stars. Why would there be a benefit?

This is actually a very interesting question. As far as we know, these values just "are"; they are not caused by anything. Maybe a future theory will explain why the exist, and why they have the values the do. An important observation (originally made by Galileo) is that you can only measure motion relative to another object, not space.

There is no paradox in the big bang model. I can only assume that if you perceive a paradox it is because you don't understand the model. It isn't static. Everything is moving away from everything else (on large enough scales). I don't know what that means. It is generally assumed that beyond the observable universe, the rest of the universe is pretty much the same. Simply because there is no evidence to the contrary. That is one possibility. The other is that it is finite (and has always been finite). We don't know, and may never know, which is correct. As recessional speed is proportional to distance, it is already (and always has been) expanding faster than light.

Because there are multiple lines of evidence that are consistent with that model. But note that it has been found that simple linear extrapolation does not work because we have found the expansion is accelerating. Because you are ignoring other factors, some of which are in the papers you have been quoting. For example, the formation of new stars, the migration of star clusters to the region of the black hole. As the paper you cited says, the radio emission is consistent with several different models of accretion, based on the star masses around the black hole. The paper you cited provides the evidence. So it is not an assumption. It is a conclusion derived from several different lines of evidence and theoretical models. What is this thread about? Is it just another "I don't like the conclusions of science and I can't understand the science, therefore it must be wrong." Please grow up. Yes.

The values are given here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html#c3

They would be absorbed by the shadowing material. The delay in change in position would be limited by c, as imatfaal says. But the edge of the shadow can move at any speed.