Strange

It doesn't hint at any such thing. If you think it does, that is just an indication of how little you understood.

Interesting idea. I wonder how we could test it...

There are various scientific hypotheses that space-time is quantised and/or emergent from something else (entropy, information, mathematics, ...) So I suppose it is possible. It would requires some evidence though. That seems like a non-sequitur. Can you explain why you reach that conclusion? Those who currently believe in a god or gods would, presumably, continue to do so. Those who do not believe in a god would, I assume, continue not to believe. I can't see any relevance to anything in that article. (Although it is an interesting technology.)

"It seems"? What does that mean? There is scientific evidence for this? Or you had a dream? Or ... ?

More has been learnt about the apparent distribution of dark matter. Initially it was only a problem for galaxy clusters. Then it was found to also be an issue within galaxies. Nicely, the same amount of dark matter with the same properties works in both cases. Analysis of the properties required show that it must be "cold" dark matter (i.e. not moving at relativistic velocities) hence ruling out neutrinos as a possibility. A large number of other types of particles (e.g. some classes of supersymmetry) have also been ruled out by the failure to detect them in various experiments. It has also been found that the same amount of dark matter (with the same properties) is required in simulations of the formation of large scale structures in the universe in order to get results consistent with what we observe. Dark matter is also required to explain features of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). And so on, and so on. So, yes, although we don't yet know what it is, I would say we have learnt a lot in the last 94 years.

As far as dark matter is concerned, the evidence is now pretty overwhelming that it is a form of matter (although that hasn't stopped people looking at alternatives). But the main point is that "unknowable" implies (to me) that it cannot be known, even in future. And there is no reason to think that is the case.

Or just claiming you have some outtakes without showing them.

So you agree that your claims were largely erroneous then?

1. I never said that. So that is just a silly straw man argument. 2. More anecdotes? What is wrong wth you? 3. Malala? You mean the case of a devout Muslim girl being attacked by political extremists? Yes, I suppose that has something to do wth religion. (Note: sarcasm; to show how silly using anecdotes to make a point is.) 4. So those decades of trouble between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland has nothing to do with religion? 5. The killings of Palestinians by Jews has nothing to do with religion? 6. The fact that Judaism has by far the word Peace Index in the data provided by Prometheus has nothing to do with religion? 7. The Crusades never happened? Tell the families of the thousands killed and injured that it was just "passive aggressive". I'm sure they will be greatly relieved.

Unsupported assertions do not make a compelling argument.

Really? I am not aware of that. Does it?

Science is not knowledge. I don't think any animals could be said to gain the knowledge that they pass on by using science.

I don't think they seem unknowable, just unknown. A big difference.

I don't have much of a position because I haven't seen much data. But as the overwhelming majority of religious people are not terrorists and do not commit atrocities, I can't see it is a major factor in those things. I have no idea on the relative levels of education versus religiosity. I would guess the pictures is very mixed. Religious organizations have always had a role in eduction (the first schools and universities in many countries were religious) but on the other hand many countries with a high level of religious belief are also poor and may not have the government and resources to ensure good education. If there are correlations between these things and religion, I would guess that it is more likely that there are a large number of other influences rather a simplistic "it is caused by religion".

No, I am not saying that at all. However, the sodium atom donates an electron to the chlorine atom (because it is energetically favourable) and forms an ionic bond. So I suppose you can consider both atoms to be ionised but the net charge of the molecule remains zero. Where you are going with all this....

Yes, shocking isn't it. Words have specific meanings and you will be corrected if you misuse them.

That is because they are ions, not atoms.

Starting from scratch in a world where all the easy sources of fuel, petrochemicals, many metals, etc. have all been used up. So they may have a harder time developing some technologies.

They are all neutral. And it seems highly relevant. It is one of many reasons why you can't explain gravity in terms of electric charge. Well, the existence of molecules would suggest that atoms can be attracted to one another. But then again, an oily surface repels water. So perhaps there is no simple answer to that question.

If there is a larger proportion of Muslims in prison than in the population that does not mean it is because of Islam, any more than the fact that there are a disproportionate number of black people in prison mean that melanin causes criminal behaviour. (As statisticians like to say: correlation does not imply causation). https://shop.spreadshirt.co.uk/badscience2/i+think+you-ll+find+it-s+a+bit+more+black+text-A18169149 Sadly it is, and as far as I know always has been, a component of the violence carried out against populations. The idea was not invented by Islam. Can't see why. The behaviour you were so proud of is textbook trolling. And clearly you don't care about anyone else's feelings but your own.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102009-are-dark-matter-and-dark-energy-related/

This question was raised in another thread (where it was considered off topic) There is no obvious relation between them. To quote from Katie Mack's FAQ: http://www.astrokatie.com/faq/#DMDE

Indeed. Or a rate of instruction execution. Or various other benchmarks. But not km/s.

Because the plural of anecdote is not data. You say tinker, I say troll (and reported as such). Personally, I would ban him for behaviour like that. And the point of that news update is ... what exactly ? Your logic seems to be: 1. there was a terrorist attack 2. a group called Islamic State claimed responsibility (although we have no idea if they really were responsible or not) 3. Therefore the Quran and/or Islam is the leading cause of terrorism. That seems a little lacking in rationality. Or was it simply appealing to emotion ("look what some evil Moslem people did!") just like most extremists do.

Then you need to provide evidence that (a) "synaptic hypercomputation" exists and (b) that is the cause. But, as you haven't yet provided any evidence that hyper computation exists, maybe you should start there before getting on to neurology.