Strange

I don't agree. You are choosing to define "most democratic" as "direct democracy". So, inevitably and tautologically, you are right. But I don't accept your definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy Your "most democratic" system potentially fails on at least two of the three important characteristics.

Well, there are coordinate systems (e.g. Gullstrand–Painlevé) which can be viewed as space falling into a black hole, rather than just the curvature of space-time. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullstrand%E2%80%93Painlev%C3%A9_coordinates But there is no suggestion that this is what the OP is thinking of. Or how the (relatively) tiny mass of black holes could affect all the stars in the galaxy. Or ... I try to constructive but apparently it never comes across that way.

Not really, no. There is no absolute definition of right or wrong and similarly, no absolute definition of the best form of democracy. However, there are things that all reasonable people would consider wrong (e.g. genocide). As such, I find it hard to agree with a definition of "best" to a democratic system that could lead to that result. I would prefer a definition of best that was based on protecting the rights of minorities, for example. Or giving some power to all groups, perhaps locally or based on their relative numbers. But just saying direct democracy is best because it is direct seems a little ... hmmm.... naive? misguided? idealistic?

It would be interesting if you could explain what his "third way" is and what physics it is based on.

The physical basis is matter (something which is known to physics) which does not interact via electromagnetism (also something which is known to physics) but does via gravity (also, known to physics). The amount, distribution, density and velocities of this matter is fairly tightly constrained. All of this can be modelled using existing physics That is what I mean by having a "physical basis". Even MOND (which seems closer to the OP) is physically based in that it provides a specific modification to Newtonian gravity in order to produce the observed rotation curves. Admittedly, that is slightly ad-hoc because there is no underlying reason known for the modification, other than it works. Unfortunately, it has to be tuned for each specific case. And doesn't help with large structure formation and the other evidence for dark matter. But at least it has its basis in physics. Unlike the OP. There are constraints on that. There are also a number of hypotheses about the nature of the particles which are testable and, in some cases, being tested. Just saying "black holes ... magic ... equations ... fits the curve" is less than useful. FIFY (I don't really agree with that version either.)

I wonder why such things exist?

So you have just picked a random equation that gives the right shape. It has nothing to do with black holes and you have no physical basis for this equation. This is not science and there seems little point exploring it. Maybe you should ask the moderators to close this thread before you embarrass yourself further.

This does not tell you the orbital velocities of stars. For that you need to consider the mass they are orbiting. And it doesn't appear to have any connection to the presence of black holes. So you seem to have plucked an irrelevant equation out of mid-air. So, please show, in appropriate mathematical detail, the precise effect a black hole has on the orbits of stars. As this seems to be the key party of your idea, it therefore implies you don't have anything. Why are you wasting our time? As it seems you are just making stuff up, I can't see how the idea can have merit.

I don't agree that is a "fact". It is an opinion based on a particular definition of "democracy". It is not about it being against my opinion. Unless you think "genocide is wrong" is just a matter of opinion. There are things that most people would agree are wrong that would become law in a totally defective system such as direct democracy. That way of thinking IS dangerous. We have historical examples to prove it. Morality is not a matter of popular opinion.

Can you show how you derive this - presumably from the mass of the black hole, or something? Also, can you do show how this explains the orbital speeds of galaxies in galaxy clusters. We can move on to gravitational lensing and the formation of large scale structures after that.

There is also the stage technique called Pepper's Ghost, which can be used to project an image onto a stage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper%27s_ghost

Can you please show us the calculations based on your idea and how well they match the observed rotation rates. Can you do the same for the orbital speeds of galaxies in galaxy clusters. Thank you.

Please provide some support for this claim.

As quantum mechanics is a theory describing the world, yes.

It sounds like you are asking a question based on two made-up ideas. As such, it has nothing to do with science (or reality) so you can make up whatever answer your want. Why do you think there is some external "thing" controlling our brain? Why do you think it only controls part of our brain? What do you think controls the rest of our brain?

Er, that is based on where it will be. (Apart from clouds, which are irrelevant.) I'm sorry. I don't know what that means. It is simple geometry. If the moon is somewhere between you and the sun, then it is not visible from the somewhere where the sun is not visible (aka "night") And I am explaining why you are wrong. Doesn't matter. The moon goes round like clockwork unaffected by the ecosystems need for light. If the sun is above you at midday and the moon is also above you at midday, then the sunlit side of the moon will be facing away form you and the moon will be dark. In the extreme case, the moon will be between you and the sun, causing an eclipse (a total lack of light). Irrelevant because: 1) The moon does not move according to the ecosystem's requirements 2) As explained above, the light side of the moon will be facing g away from Earth and so it will be providing no extra light. That doesn't make much sense. And it is wrong. The moon is mostly visible at night, partly because the lightness of the daytime sky makes it hard to see. But it spends half its time in the day sky and half in the night sky. See above. If it is new moon , and the moon is completely dark, then it is new moon everywhere and the moon is completely dark everywhere - and only (potentially) visible* where it is daytime (or twilight). * I think you can sometimes see the new moon by reflected Earthlight

The moon is not always visible. Immediately before new moon, it is invisible. If the moon is high in the day sky (which it often is) then It might be visible from somewhere where it is twilight, but not where it is dark. Er, no. The moon has no choice about where to go. Are you suggesting that the moon might move because the Sun is obscured by clouds? But (apart from the fact that the moon can't do that) then the moon would be obscured by clouds as well. If the moon is high in the sky at midday, it can hardly be there because its light is needed. (1) It won't be reflecting any light because the Sun will be behind it (2) It is midday so there is no shortage of sunlight. (3) When the moon is in the sky at midday, sometimes you get an eclipse where the moon blocks sunlight - the exact opposite of what you claim. So your guess is obviously wrong. Maybe you should learn a little about the orbits of the Earth and the Moon before making wild guesses.

More like candle > lightbulb > 1,000 * times all the stars in the observable universe.

That is a grossly dishonest article. There are religious websites that talk honestly about evolution, but that doesn't seem to be one of them.

This isn't a subject I know a lot about (it is very complex) but a couple of points: 1. The stars are not "locked" into the structure of the arms. They move in and out of them. The arms are just areas of higher density of gas and stars (this means they are also areas of higher star formation so there are more young, bright stars there, making the arms more visible). It is a bit like when you get cars bunched up on the highway: individual move through the area of congestion even though the congested area stays still (or moves backwards). 2. The arms are not "swept back" but actually curve in the direction of rotation. 3. Electromagnetic forces may have a role (particularly in keeping the ionised gas in place) but it will be much smaller than the gravitational effect.

It is not an illusion. You can look in any direction and see galaxies some of which will be about 13 billion light years away. Or the CMB which is 13.8 billion light years away. Actually, that's not quite true. The light has taken 13 billion light years to get here. But when it was emitted, those galaxies were about 4 billion light years away. Now they are about 45 billion light years away.

We can get more accurate models, but that doesn't necessarily mean we are closer to "reality".

Form the description on Wikipedia, that sounds unbelievably bad. I don't know if it fits in the "so bad it is good" category ...

I don't think we will ever get to that point.

Even if you have 2^1000 connections, you don't need to count them all. You just need to evaluate each set of inputs as they happen. Which is entirely practical. Simulations of microprocessors deal with more states than that.