Strange

Where are you getting the two singularities from? You need a two-port frobulator, preferably the model with the built-in dynamic vortex control. You will need a suitable power source. One of these might do: You can find them cheap on eBay, but you might need to replace the flux capacitor. Do you work there as a janitor? Or is your PhD in psychoceramics?

I wasn't referring you, specifically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

No. No one else thinks that. Some of the reasons are: 1. There are only minute amounts of anti-matter around. Mainly in the form of positrons formed during beta decay. So most objects do not contain any antimatter. 2. There is no reason why anti-matter would behave differently (i.e. negatively) with respect to gravity than ordinary matter. 3. There is no evidence of gravity that repels. 4. We already have a very successful theory of gravity, so what does your idea add? Apart from that, welcome to the forum. Congratulations on being imaginative and interested in science.

The dentine, like bone, can be regenerated. There has been some interesting research on stimulating stem cells to accelerate this: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38524566

The difference is that just saying "don't know" allows for the possibility that invisible pink unicorns do exist. And you would have to be insane to think that.

There is no evidence for it. So you can take that as a "don't know". In which case the default assumption (null hypothesis) is that it doesn't exist. Or, you can take the logical conclusion that the lack of evidence for something that is claimed to be so important is actually evidence that it doesn't exist. Either way, it is safe to assume it doesn't exist. (Until there is evidence that it does.)

That is an idiotic website. For example: The diagnosis is not the disease, even for physical disorders. And, in the case of physical disorders, they can often only be diagnosed by the patients description of what they experience. That doesn't make the disorder any less real. And all treatments, for all disorders, have side effects. Even something as simple as aspirin. It seems to me that the only people who argue that there is no such thing as mental illness (despite the many people who are severely impacted by it) are those who just want to deny there is anything wrong with themselves. Fine. Just don't tell anyone about the voices prompting you to kill strangers, and no one will think there is anything wrong with you ...

The two are not necessarily related. It may be possible to produce an AI that passes the Turing test (or even a proper test of consciousness) without knowing how the human brain works. It might even be possible to do it without knowing how our computer does it.

Not necessarily.

That is my understanding. Maybe a future technology...

Less of the "we", kemosabe. Because god was such a hypocrite, he tried to cover up the fact he had fucked up, bigly. Maybe we aren't and you are just deluded. So, therefore he created evil. Why? He also created natural disasters. Why? But he gave us free will so we wouldn't have to just depend on him. So which is it? We should do our won thing (and get killed by your evil god) or we should slavishly follow your god's word just so we can survive? I think you are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

That assumes the universe has a "diameter". Which, depending on the topology, may or may not be true. But you could certainly use that to calculate the rate at which the most distant point is receding.

Surely you mean 50 years of debate before it was accepted? And that is exactly why science works. It demands high levels of evidence (not "proof"). Especially for extraordinary new ideas.

Indeed. And there is presumed to be a neutrino background, equivalent to the cosmic microwave background but earlier. However we can only detect neutrinos with a high energy so, for the time being, that is not testable. (Because they have so little mass, the tiniest amount of kinetic energy means they are moving at near c.)

That brings back memories. Ivor Catt was the first crackpot I encountered, through his regular articles in Wireless World. He made some interesting points and then went beyond what was reasonable. In one article, he even tried throw doubt on the existence of Turing ("I worked at Bletchley Park and never met him ...")

Because they are travelling through the medium at different speeds. Of course we do. Exactly.

No.

Well, if you make stuff up (or believe cranks like van Flandern, who make things up) you shouldn't be too surprised if you get confused when these fantasies differ from science.

No. There is only one. That is the whole point. There is no such thing. Just because your worldview is dictated by your religious beliefs, doesn't mean that others are similarly gullible. In other words, the theory works. There is no truly stationary frame. That is a complete non sequitur. I don't think Einstein performed any experiments to test SR or GR. And nothing is ever proved correct in science. Nonsense. At which point Occam's Razor comes into play. Bye bye aether.

I think gravitons (if they exist) are assumed to be massless because gravity travels at the speed of light. But nothing is taken fro granted. There are experimental tests of photon mass (these are consistent with it having zero mass). And there will be experimental tests of the speed of gravity (as soon as we are able).

Well, you could call it that but I would really rather not. (See what I did there.)

Drivel.

It would take more that 1 year. The movement would propagate at the speed of sound in the stick. But we do see gravity waves (which carry energy away from a system) and these travel at c.

Show me where the speed of the observer appears in those equations. Duh. That is kind of the point. Go on then. Show me how the measured speed of sound is independent of the observer's speed through the medium.

Why wouldn't it?