Strange

As they say on Wikipedia: citation needed. And as you mention "being tested" (and this is a science forum) I will expect a reference to a peer reviewed scientific paper in a reliable journal.

Maybe that is the difference.

As you say, in both cases the directness is limited (as it must be). You give the impression that you think Switzerland is the only country with a democracy ...

It does in some cases ... *cough* Dawkins *cough* ... and a few people on the forum... Nicely put.

I thought I was agreeing with you ... There are a lot of people here who are anti-religion and may well attack me for supporting your views.

Brilliant use of the comma in a recent moderator decision: And, while we are at it, there is the Oxford comma: And the comma of direct address (more informally known as the Donner Party comma) which makes the difference between: "Let's eat, Grandma!" and "Let's eat Grandma!"

I agree. I don't see how any rational person would claim that science can disprove god or gods. If you are happy to interpret the Bible in that metaphorical way then I for one won't disagree with you. I'm sure there are ways of making most of the Bible (including its contradictions!) work with a suitably poetic interpretation....

I have a more fundamental question: The presence of black holes seems to be fundamental to your idea. As you seem to be replacing GR, can you explain (and quantify) how black holes form. For example, why is there an event horizon, in your model? How do you calculate the radius of the event horizon? Then can you show some calculations that support this?

It can only account for a tiny proportion. Even at the upper bound of their estimate, there could be a billion such black holes, so about 1% of the (visible) mass of the galaxy. While dark matter is about 20x the visible mass.

Science doesn't do any of those things. If you want to blame anything for that then you could start with capitalism, corruption, lack of education, bad governance, etc.

"Did someone rename this to "Random Nonsense Forums" while I was away?" I'll take that as a "yes".

Why would they be "more organic"? And what does "organic" mean in this context? And in what way does science take more than it contributes? And what evidence do you have for this claim? And what does the construction of parking facilities have to do with science? You seem to be confusing civil engineering and planning permissions with the scientific method. (Apparently, someone thought the lyrics were, "They paid a pair of guys to put up a parking lot")

So you think you can tell the time by using a flashlight? How does that work? You can point the flashlight in any direction and so your shadow can go in any direction. How does that help you tell the time? I am becoming convinced that you don't actually believe any of this stuff. No one could be that daft. You just post meaningless nonsense for fun. Is that right? It is at the new moon. But thanks for raising the idea of a moondial. I had never thought of that before. Cool! But ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moondial Obviously one could correct for that, but it becomes much more complicated than your "perfect shadow".

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second#International_second The entropy point appears to be about the (perceived) direction of time and is more of a philosophical point than a physics one (as far as I can tell, but this is getting beyond what I understand). However, there are vacuum solutions to the equations of GR; in other words models of space-time containing no mass or energy. This still include time (as they are models of space time) and, in at least some of them, there is still expansion of space.

Did he? I haven't heard that. What did he say? (And where?) Swanson can give you a more detailed answer (he does this for a living). But measuring time accurately does not involve movement. In fact the definition of the second states "at absolute zero with no motion" and the non-zero temperature and any remaining motion has to be compensated for.

Although this is a very popular meme, there is no reason to think it is true.

Did someone rename this to "Random Nonsense Forums" while I was away?

I'm afraid that is how science works: by trying to prove ideas wrong. It is a very successful strategy that has lead to the development of modern science and technology. But I can understand that having your ideas challenged, and having to find evidence for them, is not for everyone.

Most of Genesis. (Both versions)

What are these "accepted scientific truths"? And can you explain how your idea is based on them?

What is this second light? And how does it track the time? And the sun only casts a shadow between sunrise and sunset. What do you do the rest of the time?

It is a bit vague. And lacking in evidence. Scientific theories are not about beliefs but about evidence and predictions. The current evidence is that there are fundamental particles which are indivisible, so this part of your theory appears to be wrong.

I would suggest the sort of representative government used by the USA and most European countries (most countries, in fact). It could be argued that various forms of proportional representation are better than a "first past the post" or two party system. But those are details once you have got away from direct democracy. Obviously, examples like Germany in the '30s show that tyrants can be elected and do bad things in extreme circumstances. But your most democratic system almost guarantees that will happen (and hence the removal of two of the three planks of democracy).

And your evidence for this is what, exactly? And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

What if the majority deny any due legal process or protection to left-handed people or the mentally ill. Is that equality under the law? What if the majority votes for a law that makes it illegal for any political meetings (other than those of the majority group) to take place. Is that political freedom? This one is trickier because, like Nixon, whatever the majority says will be "the rule of law" IS the rule of law. OK. You got me. One of the three seems unarguable. Jeez. I'm sorry. I accidentally wrote "best" instead of "most". Mea culpa. I most humbly beg your forgiveness. So I agree. For your personal definition of "most democratic" then the system you define as most democratic turns out to be the most democratic. Pretty surprising. I guess I have to concede that one. We will skip over the idea that "most democratic" could be defined in any other way.