Strange

I wonder if you would be better off looking at the concept of Hamming distance rather than combinatorials... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_distance

You obviously have a different definition of the word "data". It seems you are totally missing the point. Without data (whatever the reason) all you have is an opinion. And it is not clear why anyone would care about your opinion. It seems it isn't too difficult for others to find relevant data so I can only assume you don't really care about the facts.

More important than whether it contradicts your idea or not is the fact that it uses objective, quantitative data. Something you have spectacularly failed to do.

There might be. There might also be the secret of eternal life. But as it is totally illegible, we will never know. Then perhaps you could explain how you cipher works, what you did to develop it, what results it produces, and so on. Preferably WITHOUT another stupid picture that shows nothing useful. Which, by definition, is nonsense. And you have yet to (a) show a sentence that you have created; (b) explain the method by which you created it. As your "cipher" is based on numerology, it is obviously nonsense for the reasons that imatfaal so clearly explained. Just saying "the odds are misrepresented" is not a valid argument. Please show, in mathematical detail (and without posting another picture) what the odds should be and why your cipher is strong.

I don't think it is that. I don't think this is (necessarily) related to how much people know (or don't). It is more a communication problem. (Just noticed you said that in response to someone else's comment) That might be it. It might be that some people are just not practised in putting their ideas down in a coherent way. Having worked for decades as a writer, I sometimes forget that communicating clearly, in a well-structured way takes training and practice. But there are still some people who, when you say "You haven't told us what you are talking about yet; what is this ... that you are describing", will just provide any cryptic sentence (as if it should be obvious) or launch off at another tangent. (Maybe I am seeing many different behaviours and conflating them as one.) Well, it is useful to know that someone else thought the same thing!

No. He just made some passing reference to it in the introduction. (And not very accurate, as far as I can tell.)

Well, I suppose 1974 is fairly recent on cosmic timescales.... It is a tiny percentage of the mass of the galaxy (about 1012 solar masses) so it only has a significant effect on the stars nearby that are orbiting it. It will have no measurable effect on the solar system, for example. The alternative to a perfectly round orbit is an elliptical orbit. This can be stable and does not imply falling into or receding away from the central body. Do you have any evidence of that? That is not how the arms of galaxies form. They are density waves in the material of the galaxy. Please calculate how great this effect is. I am sceptical that a small change in distance from a mass that is one millionth of the mass of the rest of the galaxy will be significant. Feel free to prove me wrong. Why would it make things appear to be moving away from us? And why would it make their recessional speed proportional to distance. Please show your calculations that led you to that conclusion. The accelerating expansion was a surprise to everybody, which is why the discoverers got the Nobel Prize in 2011. But being surprising, unexplained or unbelievable does not alter the evidence. That is not the right equation for gravitational time dilation. Where did you get it from? It is up to you, as the person making the claim, to show that it is big enough.

Excellent summary of the problems. In other words: it's numerology.

The main thing I was commenting on there was the "continuous creation" aspect. In that case (at least in Hoyle's model) the universe has always been (roughly) the same as it is now and it is the continuous creation of matter that allows it to expand. In that case, there is no explanation for the CMB. As to the "from a central point" bit, that is addressed by Mordred's comment about isotropy. The expansion is the same in all directions - in other words, everything is moving away from everything else. This is not consistent with expansion from a point. Not really. The model is based around expansion caused by the scaling of space. So if you consider any number of points in space (where you are, the location of Mars, the centre of the Andromeda galaxy, the most distant galaxy we can see) and run the clock backwards then, as universe shrinks these points in space all get closer to one another. Eventually they are all adjacent. And that is the location of the big bang: everywhere.

Is there some sort of known psychological phenomenon (condition? disorder?) where people will say or write things that they assume will make sense to others because they understand it themselves. But they fail to reveal or explain any of the background knowledge or information that allows them to make sense of it. This seems to happen fairly frequently on science forums (particularly in Speculations or equivalent). People will post a cryptic paragraph or equation or image and expect others to make sense of it. In some cases, it is possible to slowly drag enough information out of the other party to make some sort of sense of what they are trying to say. Occasionally, they will say, "oh, of course. What you need to know is ..." as if they just hadn't realised that others don't know what they are thinking. Some never seem to get to this level of awareness. Is this related to (lack of) theory of mind? Or autism spectrum? Or some other sort of disordered thinking? (P.s. the thread title is obviously an example )

That would be because you haven't explained it. Please stop posting illegible and incomprehensible pictures. Neither have you, so far. I think it is a random, illegible, meaningless and incomprehensible picture. Please stop posting these pointless images if you are not going to explain them. You appear to be incapable of explaining what you are doing, and why, and what the result is. Did you never have to write an essay at university? Did you never have to present an argument in a logical and well-structured manner? No one is going to take you seriously unless you EXPLAIN things. If you post another picture without a detailed explanation I will report you to the moderators for deliberately trolling. Please get your act together now.

Why are you equating a document that says "EuropA" with something that you claim says "EuropE"? Why are you equating a document that says "AfricA" with something that you claim says "AfricUS"? Why are you ignoring Asia?

What is a tripartite mate? Why are you equating a document that says "EuropA" with something that you claim says "EuropE"? Why are you equating a document that says "AfricA" with something that you claim says "AfricUS"?

This is one of the models that Hoyle tried when he was trying create a (quasi-) steady state theory. The thing that killed of this and hsi other attempts was the CMB. There is no other model that predicts exactly what we observe.

That seems to be a summary of Hoffman's position. And, to some extent it trivially correct. For example, we only perceive a small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum that is useful to us. We must have a completely different view of the world around us than bats (who rely on sonar). And from birds that can see into the ultraviolet. However, it is not obvious that because bats see a chair with sonar while we see it in a limited set of colours, that the chair therefore does not exist (which seems to be his argument). Instead, the most we can say is that we see a chair which is probably not an exact representation of the chair that exists. But he does seem to go from that, entirely reasonable, position to: " ... and therefore reality doesn't exist. Oh, and by the way, here is some mathematics and quantum woo to make it sound more sciency."

What is a T-Map? Why are you equating a document that says "EuropA" with something that you claim says "EuropE"? Why are you equating a document that says "AfricA" with something that you claim says "AfricUS"? Could it be that you are desperately searching for anything you can make fit?

I think your philosophical view can be a conscious decision. Become a naive realist and then you will know that what you see is exactly what is out there. I am a naive realist by inclination. I believe that the world we see is a close representation of reality. However, I also admit that this is logically indefensible and is thus just a belief. However, it cannot be disproved, either. (Your man Hoffman cannot compare what we perceive with reality so he cannot prove they are different. He is just pretending to use science to support his own philosophical beliefs.)

Why would you be depressed by it? The idea that the world is not how we perceive it (and that we cannot ever perceive what it "really" is) is a very old idea. And, really, it is in unavoidable conclusion from a logical point of view. But, like free will, it is also pretty irrelevant. What difference does it make if the world around us really is just as perceive it (naive realism) or is completely different (idealism) or completely created by your mind (solipsism) or just a simulation. As we can never tell the differnce between any of these, they are all equally irrelevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

This sounds like Utilitarianism. (I'm not saying that is good or bad, just that it is a well-established philosophical position.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

It does not appear to have any basis in either science or reality. If you intend to present an idea that you have made up, then you should do it in the Speculations section of the forum. The protons and neutrons in the nucleus are held together by the string nuclear force. As the name suggests, this force is very strong. So what would allow a gap to appear between them?

Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem That doesn't make sense. You say they are connected to one another but that they are insulated from one another. What is the basis for this claim? You can't show that conservation of energy is violated by just making up numbers. No.

Thank you for (finally) providing some specific details. I can only second Ophiolite's comment that it would have been helpful if you had provided at least this level of detail to start with, rather than us having to draw it out of you painfully over 5 pages. While I agree that the last skull is notably different from the others, I disagree that the first three are "almost identical". I see a steady progression there. It would be just as valid, in my opinion, to say that the first is significantly different from the other three. My opinion on the other traits you mention would be similar so I am not going to go through them all. However, I am not trained in analysing the features of hominid skulls (I suspect that there is a lot more to it than just a superficial "it looks like"; I assume there are detailed comparative measurements, and I assume it takes more than a single sample of each species, etc) so my opinions are of no value whatsoever. I haven't seen anything yet to suggest that your opinions are worth any more than mine on this subject. But good luck persuading people. I suggest you start with some detail in future, rather than just insisting you are right "because it is obvious".

All four skulls appear about equally different to me. Picking any one of them out as different from the other three would seem completely arbitrary. But perhaps you could point out specifically which features are common to the first three and different from the last (ideally in a quantitative way). Or are you just going to say "it's obvious".

The galaxy is estimated to be between 12 and 13 billion years old. It settled into its current disk form about 8 billion years ago. The rate of production of new stars had passed its peak before then. So I would guess it was similar-is to how it is now. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2079278-ageing-milky-way-stopped-making-stars-before-it-ran-out-of-gas/