Strange

This is blatantly false. Of course, the periodic table was developed, and used for a long time, with no explanation for why the elements fit into those patterns. The model of atoms containing electrons explains these patterns. Do we know electrons exists? Ultimately, no: we don't know that anything exists. But we can be just as confident in the existence of electrons as we can in the existence of rocks. As fundamental particles have zero size, this problem doesn't arise. As there is no evidence of internal structure, this problem doesn't arise. I suppose it is always possible to invent two untrue "facts" and then claim to have found a paradox. Not a very useful approach, though.

1. That is paradoxical not incomprehensible. 2. Is that part of any scientific theory? If not, it is irrelevant. So, again, are there any scientific theories that are self contradictory? There are plenty of theories that are incomprehensible to those without the right background. Are there any that are incomprehensible to everyone?

Tidally incoherent.

Mass and energy are equivalent. 1. I would like to see confirmation (not just an unsubstantiated claim) that all the various properties of particles (charge, spin, colour charge, mass, lepton number, etc.) can be mathematically represented as "swirling vortexes of energy". 2. Energy is a property. So if you have "swirling vortexes" they must be of something that has energy, not just energy.

It can't be wrong: he thought of it and it makes sense! Evidence is for wimps.

I assume the argument is that Humans Are Special (what with being created by aliens and everything) and so the human mind can do things that computers can't. Of course there is no evidence of that. But why let that get in the way of a good story.

Bad analogy. Different hardware running different software with different data inputs and different histories will not all behave the same.

Nope.

The wheel will wobble, but its centre of mass won't. This was also explained in your other thread. To spin the ball you need to add energy. To stop it spinning you have to remove that energy. So you have also transferred the energy from the front to the rear along with the mass of the ball. You can't violate conservation of momentum.

Are there any theories that include that? Are there any scientific theories that are self contradictory?

Are there any such things?

Why does it have to be made of anything?

Comprehensible to who, though? As you say, many people cannot comprehend a finite universe. Therefore (by your logic) reality must be infinite. But you cannot comprehend an infinite universe. Therefore (by your logic) reality must be finite. Some people can comprehend both. Therefore (by your logic) reality must be both finite and infinite. I can't understand the maths of GR. Therefore (by your logic) it must be wrong. I'm sorry but being comprehensible or "making sense" is a completely useless (being polite) basis for deciding whether a theory is useful or not.

We don't know that. Reality isn't determined by whether we can comprehend it or not.

There is no evidence that is the case. The proportion of dark matter appears to be constant and has been present since before stars and black holes existed.

Or because he was Canadian.

Wrong. I don't have an opinion one way or the other about your ideas. I don't even care very much whether they are right or wrong. What I do care about is critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning and, in general, the scientific method. Well, as brought up the subjects in question, I assumed you actually understood them. There are a lot of different techniques used to gather quantifiable data. So neuroscience, for example, uses tools like functional MRI to gather evidence. Psychology uses techniques such as testing how well or how quickly subjects can perform tasks. Sure. There are many things that haven't yet managed to understand and/or produce treatments fro. But that doesn't show they don't have evidence. Just that these are difficult problems. Well, you might have hit on something we agree on. Freud was a complete crackpot who made up fairy tales with no evidential basis. (Sound familiar?) I find it very concerning that his views were taken seriously for so long. And, as you say, still are by some people. However, psychiatry and, even more so, psychology are have made great strides towards being proper sciences. (You know, evidence and all that.)

While there may be some truth in that (e.g. predators and their prey), I am not convinced that this inter-species behaviour can be extended to in-group/outgroup behaviour in humans (and possibly other animals?)

In what way is asking you to support your ideas discrediting or defaming you? That is how science works. If you don't like it, join a different sort of forum. How much expertise is required to spot the fact you have not provided any support for your ideas? It is Lesson 1 in critical thinking. Why should I accept anyone's ideas just because they say so? What if another poster comes along and says: "That SamCogar has it all wrong. My idea is ..." And then another person says: "No, no. You both have it wrong. What really happens is ..." Whose idea do I take as being most credible? The one that best matches the evidence. Not the one that is asserted most forcefully. Gosh. You invented something 50 years ago. Well done. And thanks for reminding me that I need to CLINK-ON a link. I might have forgotten that. Your are a real treasure trove of valuable insights.

There are plenty of people who have done good, or even excellent Nobel Prize winning, work but are still cranks. Laithwaite, Hoyle, Andrulis, Tesla, Newton, Crick, ... I'm sure there are hundreds of others.

That would be an appropriate response to every one of cladking's posts.

Until you have some evidence to support your hypothesis, there is nothing to learn. Go for it!

As there is no such thing as a "parlif" (and your posts are incoherent nonsense) my prediction is that physics and cosmology will stick to following the evidence. Also, note that the "big bang" is not an event, not an explosion, not something created from nothing (nor from a "parlif"). The big bang model describes the ongoing evolution of the universe from an earlier hot dense state.

There is no edge and no "void".

I guess you can think of it like that. Two things though: 1. They have zero size so, in a sense, this edge doesn't 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).