Strange

Er, what!? Sugar is "actually a chemical substance". As are water and air.

Please tell Mike that. And point out that making up your own answers (which are not only NOT supported by evidence but are, in fact, contradicted by evidence) is not a valid response.

As previously noted, the CMB contains a wide range of frequencies including these because it is a near perfect black body spectrum. How much do you expect the spectrum to diverge from a black body at this frequency? (Without that information, your questions is basically meaningless.) Relative to what? What are the units of measurement for these sizes?

Looks like cladking is resorting to his usual tactic of just throwing random unconnected claims around, rather than having a coherent discussion about the topic of the thread.

In what way are they different? How much difference to the gravity does 40,000 tons of dust per year make? How much difference does this make over 200 million years? (This is a very simple calculation, so I assume you have already done it to support your idea.) If you haven't done the calculations and they don't support your idea then it is not just pseudoscience, it is nonsense.

I haven't. What did you think of it? Is it worth reading?

If you have already decided to be irrational then there isn't much point in this thread. Then what sort of nut are you?

Even if you were silly enough to express the distances as times, the ratio would still be pi.

Many humans have evolved to drink milk. So, no.

You will need to be more specific. An article about the formation of the solar system does not seem very relevant to the question of the Earth changing size since the dinosaurs. So unless you have some actual evidence, I think we can assume it is nonsense.

No. And no.

Is it? Really?

What are the units for these sizes? (inches? kilometres? furlongs?)

No. It is the movement of air produced by pressure differences (ultimately resulting from temperature differences). No. It evolved naturally, like most words. Citation needed.

I am interested but you refuse to answer my question. What are the units in these sizes?

The more usual meaning of attenuate is a reduction in amplitude.

As it is possible to build a turing-complete computer using water (or clock work, or matchboxes, or ...) then it is possible to replicate what the brain does. The current implementation can (because it involves flows of ions). But if it were not electrical, then it wouldn't be. Consciousness can also be affected by a hammer. That doesn't mean you need hammers to make a brain.

I think it is much more likely that people just ignore the door being opened. They see a choice of two (count them: two) doors and hence assume a 50:50 chance. Certainly that is the view of everyone I have talked to about this.

So send a recording. You have nothing to lose.

Don't be ridiculous. And homeopathy is nonsense. How can having nothing have any effect.

By chance, there is a very good answer to this just posted on another forum: http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?155307-Black-holes-Can-anything-ever-fall-into-it&p=2362833#post2362833

Because it is complete nonsense. The fact that you believe such things explains why you sometimes post such bizarre "theories".

No.

It could do. You can make a completely mechanical computer. It can do everything that an electrical computer can do. You could create a computer operated by water (in fact, there are some early analog computers that work this way) and, if they are sufficiently complete then they can do everything an electrical computer can do. The ideas of computable functions do not depend on electricity. That is merely a convenience. So, the brain is a biochemical computer it can do all the things an electrical computer can do (and no more). The same is true for any implementation of a computing machine. You have made it very clear that what you believe is of no relevance. So, as always, it comes down to a personal belief and incredulity. I really, really wish someone had a better argument against strong AI!

So, what you are saying is that our experience that a choice of two items normally has a 50:50 chance is what makes most people think that is the answer? Well, that's a shocker.