Strange

I think this is beyond even Dunning and Kruger's wildest imaginings.

What does "govern" mean in this context? As you are using the word in an apparently meaningless way, there is no way of answering these questions.

Er, because you are dead? So it is the opposite of immortality.

As usual, you assume wrongly. And your analogy makes no sense. So, situation normal.

I don't know how that is relevant to the topic of the thread. But if that really is your main concern, then you should be focussing on treatments for cataracts and glaucoma (as well as parasitic diseases). Particularly in the third world. Nonsense. And "hemp" !?

I would respect someone who challenged established science with evidence. But just ignoring the evidence is not worthy of respect. Wilful ignorance is not something to be proud of.

Really? "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death" Exodus 21.12 "And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death" Exodus 21.15 "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death" Exodus 21.16 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death" Exodus 21.17, Matthew 15.4, Mark 7.10 "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die" Deuteronomy 24.7 "he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death." Leviticus 24.21 (There is more, but I got a bit bored ...)

As you have been shown the evidence that this is not the case, this is obviously a deliberate lie.

There are at least 10 companies (and a number of research projects) developing these technologies at the moment. It has made great advances since the original Kindle. Personally, I find these displays almost unusable so, despite their advantages, I think there is still a long way to go. Whether this is the most beneficial technology seems doubtful.

That is not what you said. Please drop the straw man tactic. It is getting very, very boring. Your whole shtick is that infinity doesn't exist. Wow. Finally. Then please provide an example of a scientists claiming "we know everything".

As you say: it is theory which, in science, means that it is based strongly on evidence. It didn't come from thin air. It came from measurements of energy and temperature and their relationship. It is already practical. Such a frame is guaranteed to exist, so it is not exceptional. The use of that frame is part of the definition. You have not shown any such thing. It is always true in one frame of reference. Because, as explained, it is irrelevant.

Believed by who? Only those who know nothing about modern science, presumably. We are not talking about time, but space. The reason Jupiter is hours away is because of the distance - something that, bizarrely, you don't believe exists. If they are finite, as you claim, why would it not be possible? You don't believe in infinity. So it is just "very" small. NO ONE IS DOING THAT. Please stop the stupid (and now dishonest) straw man argument. This has been known since at least Saussure. You are not telling us anything new.

Yes. That is what is technically known as "evolution". So you are just going to ignore the provided evidence, in favour of your opinion. Sad. You should open your eyes to how amazing the world is.

But only a small distance over the horizon. And in the case of an eclipse at midday, it won't be visible over the horizon where it is night. More generally, there are nights with no moon because it is on the daylight side of Earth. So it appears you are now making stuff up to support what you wish were true. Again, what does "governing" mean?

So you are insisting on calling the cone of the umbra, a "dome". Oh well, abuse the language if you must. And it is often wrong. Which is why we don't use it in science. I don't know what you mean by "governance". But as already noted, you can see the moon high in daytime sky. Correct. But hardly relevant. The moon is nowhere near the "dome" of the Earth's shadow. Guessing, like common sense, is of little value. You are too often wrong. By definition, a total solar eclipse occurs near midday. "Depending on where you are standing, the eclipse will happen at different times of the day and vary in length. If you are in the middle of the eclipse path, directly under its shadow, the eclipse occurs around midday and lasts longer than in the outskirts of the enormous shadow’s path." http://www.isciencemag.co.uk/gallery/image-of-the-week-total-solar-eclipse/

Those seem like reasonable examples of evolution by natural selection. Why do you reject them? Of course organisms reproduce their own "kinds". What do you expect? A fish to give birth to a lion? But if by "kind" you mean species, then perhaps you are looking for cases where we have seen new species arise? You could start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html (Don't worry, if you go through all of those and reject them one by one for various reasons, there are plenty more to keep you busy.)

Then why claim it is wrong? Do try and stick to the subject. Let me repeat the sentence you claim is incorrect: "The basic kinetic theory of gases tells us that the temperature is the average kinetic energy as measured in the frame for which the total momentum of the gas is zero." There is a frame where the momentum of that particle is zero. There is a frame where the total momentum of two particles is zero. There is a frame where the total momentum of all the particles is zero. You need to read and understand what is said before leaping to claim it is wrong (because you haven't even bothered to read it). If it matters to you, then you need to make an effort to understand. Until you either show an error in the mathematics (which despite your wild claims, you have not done) or some evidence that contradicts current theory, it doesn't matter to science. Don't be ridiculous. Temperature is a property of bulk materials, collections of particles. That is the definition. It doesn't apply to single particles. If you want to define some other property that does apply to single particles, then go ahead. But I assume that will just be kinetic energy (in some frame of reference).

What a depressing point of view! It seems to rather contradict your sig: there are always new things to learn.

Nope. We observe evolution in the real world. Evolution is a fact. And science produces (and tests) theories to explain that fact. You have been told that before (and been given examples) so the evidence is pretty clear that you are unwilling to learn.

You have had another thread about this. We all agreed, I think, that 1. night time is the shadow of the Earth 2. That shadow is a cone, not a dome 3. The moon is only in that shadow at times of lunar eclipse Not always. No, it very obviously doesn't. Sometimes the Moon is directly between the Earth and the Sun. I don't know what you mean by "always corresponds with the sun". It is a bit vague. Can you explain that? I would prefer we stick with observations of reality.

So because you don't understand what 4-momentum is, you assume it must be wrong. This seems typical of your approach. This, again, seems to be an example of "don't understand therefore wrong". There is a clear connection between thermodynamics and the kinetic energy of the particles in the material. This was worked out mainly by Maxwell and Boltzmann I think (this is not a part of history of science that I have studied) and is not an "assumption". Please show in appropriate mathematical detail that it does not work. Yes. I would suggest that you stop taking your lack of knowledge as the "litmus test" for whether science is correct or not. It doesn't really matter if it makes sense to you or not. I think everyone agrees that the definition does not apply in the case of a single particle. So I am not sure what your point is.

It isn't clear what this means. 1. What is a "realm"? 2. Can you provide a mathematical definition of realm? 3. How can one realm contradict another one? 4. What evidence do you have that the laws of physics evolve? We seem to have done a pretty god job of observing the entire (observable) universe. And of observing quantum scale events. So can you clarify what you think the problem is here? Can you explain what, exactly, you think is wrong with our current models? Do you have some evidence that contradicts our current models? What, exactly, is the "missing link" you refer to? Can you say exactly what aspects of that are not explained by our current theories? What experimental evidence do you have for these "space pockets"? What properties do they have? I assume that will include the mathematics of your model? Will you be telling us what testable (i.e. quantitative) predictions can your model make that allow it to be compared with other models?

Definition of a topologist: someone who can't tell the difference between a coffee cup and a doughnut. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeomorphism (I probably know even less about topology than swansont)

The big bang was not an event. It is a model that describes the (continuing) evolution of the universe from an early hot dense state. There are a number of variants of the big bang model that include this sort of idea (eternal inflation, for example).

When writing technical documentation, we are taught never to include hands (or other body parts!) in diagrams because just about everything will be offensive somewhere in the world.