Strange

This is one of those things that probably varies between US and U.K. English. Personally, to me (UK English speaker [mainly]) a salesman is someone who is on the phone and on the road to sell things. Someone who works in a shop, I would call a sales assistant or shop assistant.

We can observe activity in multiple neurons at the same time. That isn't what you said. That is a different (and as far as I can tell) utterly pointless claim. As pulses do not take zero time, it doesn't matter if the start at "exactly the same moment" (which is meaningless) they will still be happening at the same time. That could (but not necessarily) be true IF a neuron could do anything in a billionth of a second. But of course, they take many milliseconds. So the answer to your question is quite possibly: all of them.

No, it doesn't have to be repeatedly observed. What has to be repeatable are the measurements made by an experiment. And it must be possible for others to replicate the experiment. The results of the experiment will either be consistent with the theory (in which case it survives) or they won't (in which case the theory will be modified or, possibly, abandoned). There are many repeated observations that confirm both the big bang (which we can observe because it is an ongoing process, not an even in the distant past) and evolution. Evolution has been observed for millennia. Ever since plants and animals were domesticated, if not before. Theories to explain it were discussed by the ancient Greeks. There is no evidence for a "beginning". But we can observe all the evidence for an expanding and cooling universe (which is what the big bang model describes).

No. And why do you have to drag your latest obsession into every thread you can find. You have a thread on this. Just keep it there.

Exactly. Although that raises an interesting question about whether tidal forces or general relativistic effects (frame dragging?) need to be ignored as well.

I haven't seen a convincing argument against this. But I have seen a few ideas of how it might be possible. (For example, the recursive thought article.)

No. The brain waves are the result of biochemical reactions. The same ones that consciousness (and love) arises from. So you have things back to front.

Exactly. The OP should change his name to stupidgalileo if he disagrees with that.

Not if you exclude friction and air resistance.

Well, sometimes the Earth is ahead of the Sun and sometimes behind, as the Sun orbits the galaxy. So obviously, sometimes the Earth is moving faster and sometimes slower.

Presumably the contents are still wrong though.

Yes. And that sounds like an accurate reproduction (I had to change the language from auto to Italian). Is that synthesised? It seems very good (I have never tried it before and just checked it with a longer phrase).

The Italian pronunciation of "gli" (a palatal lateral approximant: /ʎ/ ) is not like anything in English, but is close to the "ll" in the middle of "million" (as opposed to the double L in villa, for example).

And (if that is what was meant - it wasn't clear to me, either) then one can train oneself not to react to unexpected shocks in that way.

Baby, don't hurt me.

Why would anyone assume that when it is plainly wrong. I couldn't see any point reading beyond that.

I must admit to being completely baffled by the American psyche. On the one hand, it appears to be a deeply religious (mainly Christian) country, with all that implies about caring for others. On the other hand, someone on Twitter said, "why should those of us with money pay for others" (with nothing explicit about why those other might need help, just a blanket selfishness, as far as I could tell). Surely, the whole point of being "a society" (*) is that you all chip in to provide infrastructure, police, roads, services, assistance, etc. to the whole population. Is the fear that helping others might be the first step to a Communist Hell just a hangover from the era of the Iron Curtain and McCarthyism? (*) Which is why I have always thought that Thatcher's "there is no such thing as society" speech is one of the most evil bits of political rhetoric I have heard in my lifetime.

And that comes from our genes. Please provide some evidence for the "energy potential of consciousness". How is it detected / measured? Nonsense.

I think the words you are looking for are "coincidences" and "cherry picking". Of course, if you reduce words to a number (whether by this method or any other equally bogus scheme such as counting letters) you can find "related" words that match. Especially if your definition of "related" is sufficiently broad. For example, you have synonyms, antonyms, things that remind you of other things, and carefully selected phrases. Who says "gravity laws"? There is only one, but the more normal "law of gravity" or "law of universal gravitation" or even "gravity law" don't work. And then you do the usual numerological trick of not even requiring the number to be the same, just similar in some way: nearly equal, having some digits in common, etc. Basically, using these tricks you can find anything you want. Other reasons why it is crap: why would numbers correspond to an arbitrary ordering of letters? Why does it work in English but no longer work if you translate the words to another language? (Obviously you can find a different set of "matching" words in another language - further evidence it is bollocks.) What about differing spellings in, say, USA and UK? What about punctuation? Why do sentences with completely different meanings have the same number; for example: "Let's eat, Grandma" vs "Let's eat Grandma"? And why doesn't upper or lower case make a difference? The whole idea is just insanely stupid.

1. Why concentrate on a very poor quality experiment that is generally considered not to be very convincing? There have been thousands of other, far more accurate experiments since then. 2. You say: Please quantify how large this effect would be and compare it with the size of the effect predicted by GR. 3. You also say: I would say that neither imagination nor common sense have a role in falsifying scientific theories. That requires quantitative data. Which you have spectacularly failed to provide.

They do. But say you had visited Japan a long time ago and got used to the (very sensible) tradition of removing your shoes. Then you go back and they say, "oh no, we don't do that any more. You come into the house with your shoes on." According to you, that should no longer be called "coming into the house" because that requires you to take your shoes off. It needs to have anew name for people who are not sticking by the old tradition. But is has referred to things other than just "a man and a woman". By your "tradition" argument, it was wrong for those places that used to allow child marriages to now prevent them. Or those that used to ban interracial/intercaste marriages should not allow them now. Things change. Get over it. No more than other people. As you say, the majority of Americans accept gay marriage. So the "tradition" has changed to keep pace with public opinion. That is culture, society, language and the law work. I have no idea. I assume it is the same as the rather dishonest "I'm just asking" tactic used by creationists, for example. As to why you are not very convincing; perhaps because you keep switching between "some people think" and "it is wrong". Plus look at how emotional you have got about something that you don't care about at all... And, very clearly, it isn't acceptable to a lot of the people who are affect by it. Many people in the UK held off having a civil partnership because they wanted a "marriage". I can't tell you why that is. But, like you, many people think the name is important.

Although, in both cases, it would fall back again and oscillate about the mid-point. With air resistance it would eventually stop in the middle. (This ignore imperfections, the rotation/precession of the Earth, the heat at the centre, etc.) An interesting point is that it would take the same time to fall through and out the other side as an object in orbit (at the same starting altitude).

I can't see why. Perhaps you could explain (in appropriate mathematical detail). After all, you can still use a Sun-centered coordinate system to calculate the orbits of planets. And an Earth-centered coordinate system to calculate tides.

Probably quite high. There are many interactions in the universe at much higher energies than CERN can produce. But, like most of the other particles that are formed, they will be very short-lived. I don't see any connection between creating a boson and creating matter, so not sure why you say "if so"? Anyway, yes there will be some particles of matter and antimatter formed. But they will soon annihilate and turn into photons. It is not an "assumption". It is a result of current theory. It is the same theory that describes how objects fall to the ground or orbit stars. So far, we have no evidence it is wrong (which is the closest thing to "proof" you get in science). Well, I know (from previous threads) that you have a bizarre obsession with things moving outwards. For utterly incomprehensible reasons. But... In this case, it turns out you are partly right. (Shock! Stop the presses!) The intense amount of heat generated as matter accretes does cause a significant proportion of the matter to be pushed away. So there is a theoretical limit on how fast (and how large) black holes can grow. http://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/mmassi/lezione2WEdd.pdf Also, there are complex electromagnetic interactions which cause matter to be sent out in jets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet But feel free to twist and misrepresent all this information into something that supports your beliefs. Then we can try and correct you. Although we will be wasting our time...

Citation needed. They are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cannonball What experiment is this? And how does a charged plate find uncharged neutrinos? I will stick with science, if its all the same to you.