Strange

Another demolition of the Daily Fail's lies here: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/

Because it is obvious. Perhaps you can show, in mathematical detail, why you think he is wrong? So your argument seems to be that G is stable everywhere, and at all times, when there is a grandfather clock present. But it varies if there are unreliable Russian scientists present. Very logical. I think a more likely explanation is that it was written by Einstein but that you don't have a clue what it means. The change in the period of a pendulum has nothing to do with GR (it is a straightforward mechanical thing). If you want to take GR into account, as well, then the equation for the period of a pendulum is slightly more complicated.

Oh no. He was such a brilliant communicator. And so often of the good news that doesn't get talked about. Sad. And, of course, people like him are even more important in the post-truth, alternative-fact world we now seem to live in.

Do you mean "biogenesis"? The hypothesis put forward by Pasteur in opposition to "spontaneous generation". Or is the hype significant, and you are referring to something else? And how is it relevant to the question of evolution? BTW: What do you mean by "three dimensional coding"? What do you mean by "a collision with other genetic material"? When you say, "I gave you the answer just in this statement"; which statement do you mean?

I have absolutely no problem with this. It is an entirely reasonable and rational position.

I am quite sure that Einstein (who knew some basic physics) had no doubt at all about a pendulum's suitability for measuring time. But feel free to use some science to show otherwise...

Pretty much. 2blade's position seems to be: "Hi, I have just joined this club and I don't like it. I want to change it to be the club I wanted to join."

So maybe we should stick to the topic of this thread. Instead of introducing extraneous and irrelevant objections.

Not at all. A better analogy might be a club with rules. You agree to the rules when you join the club. If you don't like the rules, you don't join. Nothing like a country.

Please explain why the "Note 7" that you quote is relevant to a pendulum demonstrating the stability of G. Or, at least admit you don't understand what John said and that you just grabbed a random statement about pendulums that may have nothing to do with it. Then you have to drop the claim as being nonsense.

Where are clocks synchronised, or even used, in this example?

Why should anyone care? I am fairly certain, based on mathematical proofs, that there are things bigger than infinity. An infinite number of them, in fact.

It is not a "law"; it is a conclusion from the assumption (predicted by Maxwell's equations and confirmed by thousands of experiments to ridiculous levels of accuracy) that the speed of light is invariant. And it does apply if the observers are moving in the plane of symmetry you describe. It is just slightly more complex to analyse. The simplest possible example is chosen to demonstrate the principle. That appears to be statement about time dilation, not relativity of simultaneity. By saying SR is correct "some of the time" you imply that the rest of the time, it is wrong. Please provide some specific examples where SR has been shown to be wrong. You said it is wrong 100 times more often than it is right, so it should be possible for you to come up with one or two specific examples (not more of your vague handwaving). As, once again, you are unable to provide any examples, I will have to assume this is not true.

Note that John's point was not about using a pendulum to measure G but about constraining the variation in G. (Of course, it is entirely possible that the radius and/or mass of the Earth varies when G changes in order to keep pendulums swinging at the same rate ...)

So the fact is that you don't know what determines the period of a pendulum (Google could make up for your lack of education here). This means that you end up citing citing a completely unrelated effect (purely related to special relativity, not general relativity, not gravity and not G) because you mistakenly think it must be related. I struggle to see why anyone should take you seriously when you demonstrate this level of ignorance. I don't even understand why you take yourself seriously! You totally miss the point. It is not about quoting authorities, it is about understanding the subject and providing rational fact-based arguments. You need to cite relevant evidence and explain, in appropriate detail, why it supports your argument. If you cannot explain why the comment about pendulums is relevant then please withdraw your claim that it is a counter-argument to John's point.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Gender Identity Disorder (not a term I had come across before) is not related to hermaphroditism or even more general intersex disorders. There are people with gender dysphoria who are not intersex (and a small percentage who are). And, of course, those with intersex disorders can suffer from other diseases. So what is your point? And how is that relevant? And why do you think any of this is taboo?

I am pleased that you are interested in science. And it is good that you are imaginative, and coming up with ideas. But science needs more than that: it needs those ideas to be quantified and testable. After all, how else do we choose between your nice story and someone else's? The answer is, the story must include a mathematical model that allows it make predictions. We then use experiments to compare those predictions against reality and see which model is best. Without that, you are not doing science.

I don't think that the Daily Mail being a dishonest bit of right-wing trash is a new angle!

Have you tried rebooting in safe mode and then deleting the folder? If that doesn't work, then you might be to take the disk out and mount it as a drive on another computer and delete the file from there (perhaps using an external drive USB adaptor). I don't know which anti malware programs you have tried; Malwarebytes has a good reputation for handling difficult cases. You could also (if you are comfortable doing this sort of thing) try searching the Windows Registry for the string "fanli" and deleting any registry keys that mention it (making a backup of the registry first).

Too simplistic? And yet you still struggle to understand it? I think it is pretty clear. Although there are better descriptions; I have only had to read Einstein's description because persistent crackpots insist on deliberately misinterpreting it in order to support their beliefs. The video that was posted at the beginning of the thread presents it very clearly (from what I remember: I haven't watched it again, but I have recommended it in the past for people who struggle with this idea). I don't think he does. The whole point of the thought experiment is to show that those are different things and that different people will experience the "flashes" differently and hence reach different conclusions about the "strikes". There are really only two reasons for someone not being able to follow this very simple argument: 1. They are so emotionally attached to their delusional belief system that they invent errors and misinterpret what they read in order not to have to change their views. 2. They are extremely stupid. So, for all of the experiments that are consistent with the predictions of relativity, there are 100 times as many that produce contradictory results? In which case you should easily be able to cite a few peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting this... Please provide some evidence of this. (Not holding my breath.)

There are (I think) repair mechanisms that try to correct errors in reproduction. I don't know if these are more effective in some parts of the genome than others...

It would initially give off its liquid components (water, resist, etc). Then other volatile components. Eventually (depending on the temperature) the other components would start to melt and/or break down. I don't know enough about the chemistry of the compounds in wood to say more than that.

Your use of "just a theory" suggest you have no idea what a scientific theory is. And why "respect to Albert Einstein" when you are contradicting pretty much all his work?

But people who believe in other gods may be equally convinced that their believe is right and yours is wrong. So why should I believe you and not them? Great. Tell him to come and make his case (next time you speak to him). So far he has been a bit aloof and cowardly. I think he is afraid he would lose any logical argument. His only argument is: "believe in me or I will kill you". To which I say: "push off, you big bully".

So when people die in natural disasters, it is because they have been bad? And that is also true of children and infants? How bad can a baby have been in a few months to deserve to be killed in a tsunami?