Strange

That doesn't make much sense. GPS satellites are only designed to receive updates from the base stations that you mentioned. How would building a satellite on Earth help?

What?

I don't see how that is relevant. What "light transmission"? Getting a position is not enough. Accessing the internet is a two way process.

It isn't immediately obvious that they are measuring different things, though.

This is the same question about the (measured) change in units versus the elapsed/distance time. You are comparing a ruler with a clock. You should be comparing a ruler with a metronome and an odometer with a clock. In the case of a ruler and a metronome, an observer in another frame of reference will see them foreshortened and running slower. But they will both return to the same units of measurement when returned that to that frame of reference. In the case of an odometer or a clock, they will both show that the total distance travelled / time passed is different for the "stationary" and the moving observer.

GPS is not designed for two way communication. There is no way for it to receive requests from GPS receivers. And the system doesn't have the bandwidth to send much more information than it currently does: each satellite constantly broadcasts its orbital parameters and, regularly, the data for all the satellites (so the receiver knows how to find others more efficiently than the "blind" search that it has to do for the first). There are satellite phones which would be a better technology to use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access

Not really. There is, occasional, evidence of individuals holding on to old ideas and refusing to accept new theories. There is even more occasional evidence of such people actively preventing (or attempting to prevent) the adoption of new ideas. But, in the end, the scientific process works: people publish and discuss their work, other reproduce it, it gains acceptance, and science has advanced another step. But, as I say, if you think it doesn't work that way, then feel free to present some evidence. Your glib, closed-minded and slightly arrogant dismissals are getting a bit tedious. Of course, people made those things up for no reason at all, not because of the evidence. </irony> Unless you want to come across as closed minded and dismiss the new evidence because you don't like it? Luckily, science doesn't do that. It is willing to think outside the box and consider new ideas when necessary. (Which brings us full circle. So feel free to repeat your dismissive comment.)

No. Just an observation based on the evidence. But if you have something other than a dismissive one word post, please feel to present some evidence to support your case.

All velocity is measured relative to something. If something is not moving relative to you, then its (relative) velocity is zero. All velocity is measured relative to something. If something is moving slower than you relative to some (arbitrary) reference, such as the ground, then you are moving faster than it. And vice-versa.

And, with a few temporary exceptions, it is.

The whole point about science (and the reason it has been so successful) is that it isn't governed by "common sense" or sticking with what we currently know. It is all about following the evidence, wherever that lead. Even if it means moving outside of the nice comfortable box.

What evidence do you have that it is possible for anyone to live to this age? The "problem" is that you seem to be willing to believe implausible things with zero evidence.

Q 1. What are you measuring its speed relative to? See the answer to Q 1.

I can't think of any examples where that is the case. Things are considered possible or likely because of mathematics (Neptune, dark matter, neutrinos, etc). But they are not considered real until there is evidence (Neptune, dark matter, neutrinos, etc).

Fascinating article. I particularly like this bit:

While that is (trivially) true it is not very helpful. It is true of just about any question. However, there is still a lot of really interesting work being done that might lead to plausible answers. For example, just recently: http://www.nature.com/articles/nmicrobiol2016116

There is a guy called Nikodem Poplawski who has done some work on this idea: https://www.insidescience.org/news/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe But it is not generally accepted. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html

This again seems to mix up the change in units (length of ruler, clock ticking rate) with the total elapsed (distance travelled, time passed). The ruler changes length, as observed by different observers. Whether it "physically" changes length depends what you mean by the word "physically". If you mean "what we measure" then yes, it physically changes. If you mean some sort of internal structural/chemical change, then no.

Can't you buy them from that page?

It is certainly true that in early animals, blood developed before the heart. In some organisms the blood (or equivalent fluid) is moved around by the normal movements of the animal, not by a specific organ. But then where do you draw the line between "blood" and other fluids that may have shared some of the functions. And "skin", in the sense of an outer membrane would have come first before any specific circulatory system. But the question as asked seems to imply that humans appeared de novo. There isn't really a sensible answer the the question. It should just be unasked.

They all evolved together.

Have you ever thought of studying biology and, you know, finding out how these things (which are such a mystery to you) work? By logic, you mean the usual crackpot definition of "I know nothing about the subject so I have made some stuff up that makes sense to me". This level of wilful ignorance is rather depressing. There are religious groups who take a reasonably intelligent approach to the topic: http://biologos.org/ Which makes the OP's idiocy all the worse.

I wonder if there is a word for this sort of delusion. It is kind of the opposite of apophenia (seeing meaning in external things where there is none).

Not much more (assuming the calculator is correct - I haven't checked). Because it only takes a relatively small time to get up to a significant fraction of c. Off the top of my head, I thought it would be about 402 years ...

Why would anyone think these things came about like this. It is a very old idea. I think it has been described as the "tornado in a junkyard" argument or something similar. It appears to be based on no knowledge about how evolution (or even biology) works.