Strange

1. WHY do you perform those operations on the numbers? 2. WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE of your results? Talk about blood from a stone ...

I have no idea. Because you made up some terminology, I had to guess what it means. It wasn't an argument to be refuted. It was a suggestion that you get a basic education in the subject you are discussing. You seem to be confusing pop-sci metaphors with physics. Again: get an education. That wasn't an argument from authority. He was just pointing out that your argument is incoherent. But you have always failed to justify these arguments. They are simply assertions (that appear to be incorrect).

Not exactly an original insight. Did you pinch it from Stephen Wolfram? https://xkcd.com/505/ It earns 5 points in the Crackpot Index (rule 8).

I don't know why you insist on making everything so hard. Even if I could, why should I try and decipher your cryptic notes? (Genius is just a silly forum title. I am certainly no genius is real life.) As far as I can tell you are just doing random operations on made up numbers. You need to explain what you are doing to convince me I am wrong. It is your idea, can't you walk us through it step by step. If you made a bit of an effort to communicate things would be so much easier. if I divide 7.0319e-25 ... where does 7.0319e-25 come from? by 1.246e-27 ... why do you divide by 1.246e-27? I find it's approximately 564.358 times the mass size of the 1.246e-27 particle ... is 564.358 a significant ratio? if so, why? if I then divide the 564.358 by 3 ... why do you divide it by 3? I get 188 times the mass of the 1.246e-27 particle ... is 188 a significant ratio? if so, why?

So you are saying that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe, there was a large explosion here and everything is heading away from us? How well does a model based on that fit the observations? For example, if everything was flying away form us for "Newtonian" reasons, then why would recessional speed increase with distance? Perhaps you should read up on the history of the science in this area. You are not suggesting anything that hasn't been considered and, eventually, rejected. I may have said this before (once or twice) but the killer blow for models like this was the confirmation of the CMB.

Where do these numbers come from and why are you dividing them in this way? Why do you divide by 3? How do these relate to the Higgs boson?

What is "Newtonian expansion"? And how well does a model based on that fit the observations?

Actually, we aren't. See this explanation: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96762-actual-vs-apparent-universal-expansion-rate/?p=934158 However, let us concede that we see apparent recessional velocities greater than c. Then that must mean that one of your initial premises was wrong. Premise 1: nothing can move faster than c Premise 2: there is no expansion Observation: [apparent] speeds greater than c Conclusion: premise 2 is wrong and there is expansion. Good.

Ironic, from someone so strongly opposed to learning and evidence. And I note that you are continuing your usual strategy of continually changing the subject to avoid answering any questions. Maybe politics is the right place for you.

You keep starting threads in an argumentative way and then refusing to engage in constructive discussion. What conclusion should we draw?

However, I would insist that someone who wants to criticise current science should actually learn science first. That has nothing to do with religion, though. We probably get far more people making up their own "theories" based on ignorance of science than we do people claiming that science must be wrong because of religion. Huh? And why is this under Physics?

How about you stop dancing around, introducing non sequiturs, changing the subject and generally messing about and actually discuss the subject that you introduced? For example What are these other factors?

I can only assume that you are totally delusional.

I don't believe you. After school, is anyone forced to study science? Sadly, that is not true: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/09/28/130191248/atheists-and-agnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious

Excellent!

That makes no sense (which is about par for the course). Why on Earth would atheists take religious texts to be literally true? If they did that, then they would accept the truth of god, etc. and not be atheists. I would assume a great many atheists don't give a toss about what is in religious texts. Some will assume they are metaphorical or mythological. And some will claim they are all lies. But perhaps you are using "literal" in a non-standard way. Some are. Some are extremely stupid.

I don't know about Japan, but the UK, for example, also has fairly strict knife laws.

As I said, the precision of GPS is a few metres. This doesn't seem to stop people using the for augmented reality applications and games (e.g. Pokemon-Go). They may use image recognition and other clues to improve the accuracy.

What are these other factors?

As long as you realise you are using "creative power" in a purely metaphorical sense, not in any scientific sense, then please carry on.

Let's say yes to avoid any further digressions. Can we now discuss either the science (which you apparently don't want to) or your opinions regarding the origin of live.

If you read that thread, you will find that he never said that. It appears to be a lie made up by someone else. Apart from that, it is Kaku so I wouldn't take it too seriously anyway.

Neither of those involve a force, as far as I know.

Rather than continuing to dodge around the science, how about we turn this around: What is your view on how life came about?

There is an informal use of acceleration to mean an increase in speed, which is what you are referring to. But this is not the same as the meaning in physics, where it refers to a change in velocity due to a force. I think it is important to keep these different concepts separate.