Strange

Sorry, I don't have spare time (and my current contract wouldn't allow it).

There is no problem there. You certainly haven't shown that there is a problem. So we can dismiss that part of your argument as being unsupported. If you don't understand it, how can you claim it is wrong? This is just another unsupported claim that we can ignore.

No, it doesn't. That is what I said. Only all of physics.

Bacteria are part of nature, not "at enmity with it".

That is a gyroscope. Gyroscopes do not fly and are not "antigravity". Helicopters fly because they have wings.

There is no reason it would fly. Why do you think it would?

Almost everything you say is incorrect. The rest is incomprehensible. I can't be bothered to try and read through it all to see if, by pure chance, you have got one small detail right.

I don't wish to be impolite, but your English writing is almost incomprehensible. I'm sure the people at Harvard have no idea what you are trying to say. Perhaps you need to find someone who is more fluent in English to write to Harvard for you.

No.

Yes. Your lack of knowledge is incredible.

Who says it is unhealthy? (And why is this in "chemistry"?)

If it was dangerous they wouldn't sell it. (Or it would come with a warning.)

Everyone knows that. Than you understand, maybe. You are not really challenging conventions. Apart from a few basic errors (some of which you have acknowledged - thank you) you are stating stuff that is common knowledge. It is true that colours are affected slight differently because of diffraction and dispersion, but the calculation (based on observation) is simply based on the fact that light travels in straight lines. I have no idea what any of that means, I'm afraid. It could be written in another language. Yes, it is always true that the absence of light is shadow. Not really a particularly remarkable fact. Science works because it checks things against reality. How do you test wisdom? What does that mean? Science is just a method for testing ideas against the real world. I can see that not everyone is interested in that. But if so, why are you wasting your time on a science forum?

Thanks for those corrections/insights.

Not since the 80s.

Is that supposed to be an insight?

The strongest shadow is called the "umbra". The lesser shadow is called the "penumbra". Neither of these can really be called a dome.

Everything you say is correct. Except it is a cone, not a dome.

Please explain why the shadow would be a dome, in contradiction to the laws of optics. (You haven't answered my other point, you have simply repeated the same assertions.) If you think that the phases of the moon are caused by the Earth's shadow, please explain why the phases do not coincide with perigee and apogee.

Some interesting work (which I don't fully understand!) that relates infinite and finite mathematics https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160524-mathematicians-bridge-finite-infinite-divide/

Hypotheses need to be testable. How would you test your idea? Can you be clearer what you mean by "the dome". I assume you mean the shadow created by the Earth. Which is why I said that is the cause of lunar eclipses. (Which you seem to agree with.) The phases of the moon are not caused by the Earth's shadow. They are simply because part of the Moon's surface is not illuminated by the Sun.

You have NOT posted in "Suggestions, Comments and Support". You have posted in Sandbox. This is a place for testing. Not for discussion. (Consider that comment a supporting suggestion.)

Exactly. So that cannot be the cause of the phases of the Moon as you suggest.

Because you are posting in the wrong place.

Those images are "beyond the hard white light". That is an eclipse of the Moon, not the phases of the Moon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse