Strange

They will of course, all feel the same thing. None of the above. (What does "mansized" even mean?) The force depends on the density of the plane. Without specifying that, it isn't possible to answer more specifically. It would be interesting to hear your guesses and then we can see how they match up with the predictions of (1) and (2). (Of course, number 3 doesn't have a prediction and it couldn't be discussed here, anyway)

Looking at the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungus) I assume the reason is that there is nothing common to any of the other phyla that would justify grouping any of them together. But the Ascomycota and Basidiomycota both have dikaryons, so they are grouped as a sub-kingdom.

As the interpretations are informal descriptions of what the mathematical theory says, then the theory must also include the explanation. (Which, of course, it does. How else could the theory have predicted what would happen?)

This was suggested earlier (but including the singularities in black holes as well). My reply (post 18) still applies: I guess you can think of it like that. Two things though: 1. The singularity has zero size so, in a sense, this edge doesn't physically exist. 2. There is no reason to think that singularities have any physical meaning (existence); they are the result of trying to use a theory where it no longer applies (like a "divide by zero" error). The big bang model of cosmology does not go back to a "time 0" and does not include any sort of creation event. The earliest time the model can describe is a universe in a hot, dense state.

Of course it does.

Turns out "iffen" is some sort of red-neck dialect thing. I hadn't come across it before. I don't know what the thing with the numbers (n) is though. Well, Kahneman uses the terms "system 1" and "system 2" to avoid the old loaded terms. He makes it clear that this are not separate systems in the brain, but just different ways of processing information: one fast and (often) less accurate; the other slower but more considered. The latter can be influenced by the former but is not, as you suggest, totally under its control. So it can, for example, reverse the decisions made "instinctively" by what you call the "subconscious". His conclusions are backed up by a large amount of experimental data gathered over decades. Your guesses seem to be based on an Internet meme.

There is some interesting science about the relationship between the "subconscious" and the "conscious" mind. Some interesting results are documented by Daniel Kahneman in Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow (He avoids the terms "subconscious" and the "conscious" because they are not well-defined and are associated with all sorts of preconceptions - much of it connected with the pseudoscience of Freud, Jung, etc.) Maybe. I struggle to read that text (my "conscious" mind has to descramble most of the words) even though I have seen it many times before. The content is also mainly untrue, although that is probably not particularly relevant.

It was a fairly pointless posting then.

But none of them relate to science. Not one. Is there a scientific theory that is self-contradictory or paradoxical? To save you wasting any more of our time, the answer is: no.

That is only one part of his website. And, it will be interesting to see how soon the people who threatened Beall turn up here demanding that it is removed ....

So GR explains why Newtonian gravity works. But why does GR work? That question will always be unanswered. If someone comes up with a new theory (let's call it "X1") that explains "why" general relativity works then someone will just ask: "But why does X1 work?" Eventually, there might be a new theory (let's call it "X2") that explains why X1 works. At which point, someone will ask: "But why does X2 work?" Repeat for Xi (for i = 3 to infinity). Actually, I have now watched the video. And you are wrong. It does explain perfectly why things fall in curved space-time.

He was interested in many things. And it was an unsolved problem at the time. What is your point? Incoherent nonsense. Luckily, science has mathematics rathe than just words. As your words are largely nonsensical, I'll stick with the science. ... and what? That is a pretty pointless statement. But we weren't really waiting for Einstein. Others, such as Galileo, Maxwell, Poincare, Lorentz, Hilbert, Minkowski, etc. laid the groundwork and almost anyone from Maxwell onwards could have come up with the same results as Einstein. You don't know that. There are many theories being developed based on the idea that space (and time) is quantised. You needn't have bothered. It was a waste of your time and ours.

I'll respond to this once I have finished my bath...

I guess a few would. But I think most modern physicists realise they are just building models that work, not trying to find out about "reality" or "actual laws". I came back to this thread because I cam across this article on how different interpretations of probability can unite the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory and cosmological multiverse ideas: http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/88/the-multiple-multiverses-may-be-one-and-the-same

What is this? Are you so unsure of your made-up stories that you don't want to discuss them? Or are you just trolling by posting drivel?

Just came across this while catching up with various blogs: http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/worlds-main-list-of-science-predators-vanishes-with-no-warning Beall's list of predatory publishers has been taken off-line.

Are the tools used to build your house still lying around in the garden? No? So it must have been built by aliens, then.

Good luck with that.

And maybe the universe is unlimited. So all you have is an argument from incredulity.

So either fiction, fiction or fiction then.

So there are no contradictions (due to infinity or otherwise) in scientific theories. Good, glad we have cleared that up.

So your claim that they are made up of other particles was (a) wrong and (b) totally irrelevant. What do you mean by "slightly removed"? They are different classes of particles. Hadrons are made up of other (fundamental) particles. Is that what you mean? This would violate several conservation laws and so cannot happen. What is this "anomalous abundance of leptons"? Can you provide a reference? And why would we "run out" of electrons. They don't decay so where do you think they go? No, because there is an equal and opposite positive charge in the atom and it takes significant energy to remove electrons from an atom. There is a different between (scientific) speculation and just making things up that have no basis in reality (and are contradicted by evidence).

Er, yeah. That was kind of my point.... More importantly, this is why an argument from authority is a fallacy.

I was referring to the OPs argument, not yours. Does the brain generate new circuitry to deal with complex problems? You may be referring to plasticity, but that is a long way from how that works. And there are computers that have self-modifying hardware that can be tuned for specific problems. And there are systems that will develop new (as in, novel, not created by the programmer) algorithms to tackle new problems. That is an interesting Idea. I am not convinced that this would be necessary for "real AI" (or whatever you want to call it) because these processes in the brain take many orders of magnitude longer than thought does. (As you say, days or weeks as opposed to milliseconds.)

Enough with the vague assertions. Please provide one or two examples of these paradoxes, and how they impact on physical theories.