Strange

From the data. Note the source of the image you are using: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cmglee So it was created by an amateur illustrator with an unknown degree of accuracy from an unknown source of data. You have downloaded the file and (I assume) printed it on a printer of unknown calibration and accuracy and then measured it using an unknown method with an unknown ruler of unknown accuracy. Not surprisingly, your conclusions are meaningless. The data you need is readily available. For example: http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/tables/MilkyWayCentralStars.html

Nope. It doesn't. It draws a clear distinction between extrinsic curvature which does require a higher dimension to describe it and intrinsic curvature (which doesn't).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction

I think the biggest factor is that you are judging it to be a circle "by eye". You need to use some actual data. (Better than nothing, print out the picture and measure the ellipse and calculate the expected position of the focus. See how close it is to the black hole on the diagram.) The eccentricity is about 0.395 which is about the same as S1. On that basis, the position of the black hole as one of the foci seems quite plausible.

That article really doesn't support your claim. Quite the reverse, in fact. Apart from anything else, you are ignoring charge, mass and all the other conserved quantities.

Less of the "us" please. It may blind you, but I think other people are fully aware of this. Colourless green sheep dream furiously. (In other words, that sentence appears to have no semantic content.) Again, duh. It is also a complete non-sequitur. You specifically said "units are chosen in the lab that are accurate to three decimal points". Do you want to admit that is just another of your false statements, or would you like to provide some evidence?

We have a quite a bit more than that. But your point still stands, we haven't identified it yet.

Hydroelectricity is a well-understood term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity But if that isn't what you mean then: What is "gravitational electricity"?

You state these as absolutes where they are really just trends; women may tend to do these things to a larger extent than males (if they are true) but not all women will, while some proportion of men will also do them to some extent.

What is "gravitational electricity"? Do you mean things like hydroelectricity?

As all we can know of reality is our observations and the results of experiments, I think the only answer is: Yes, of course. Duh. Really? Citation needed.

This is an interesting point. There seems to be a difference between something like (I'm not sure how to describe it) range or extent, which can in principle be infinite, and the value of a particular measurement. So, in your example, the electron can have infinite number of energies, but the energy can never be infinite. Similarly, the universe may be infinite in extent but there will not be anything with infinite mass within it.

There are two different things here. Firstly, photons have energy and, as relativity shows, mass and energy are equivalent. So if you add energy to something then it also gains mass. The second thing is changing photons into matter (and matter into photons - e.g. when matter and antimatter annihilate). This again depends on the equivalency of mass and energy.

Just what I was thinking. That is hardly going to bring down the levels of corruption.

I don't think there is necessarily a correlation between any of those (or even the whole lot) and intelligence. Some very intelligent people believe in conspiracy theories. Some very intelligent people do not do well in school - perhaps because they find it boring and too slow.

I'm not sure they do (or, if they do, it is rarely apparent). When I have seen discussions of this, people usually have reasons for thinking one way or the other. But this has now turned into a meta-meta-discussion!

Yes. That is what the reference says. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407 Yes, that is what I understand total mass to mean. (Note that there are three components discussed: the mass of the stars, the mass of the plasma and the dark matter.) The paper may say what proportion of the mass is estimated to be dark matter (I haven't read it). I doubt there is any information about black holes. And I doubt they would be significant. The mass is typically 0.01% of the mass of the galaxy. (Edit: and as imatfaal says, they will move with the visible components of the galaxy.)

Who knows. What do you think? Models will always be approximations to reality. No one said you can, so why bring it up? This is obviously wrong as you have already calculated the odds of coins tosses far more accurately than that. Everyone knows that. I'm glad to see you have moved on from your "mathematics never works" stance. There is hope for you yet. I would love to know how you calculated that 99.999%. (There are a lot of models that can't achieve anywhere near that accuracy. As well as some that are a lot more accurate.)

Not exactly arbitrary. However, there is another thread on exactly this subject already so I don't see any point in rehashing it here. Infinity is well defined in mathematics (even if that is based on choosing some "arbitrary" axioms). But that is getting off the topic of the the thread which was that infinity doesn't exist "in the real world" (whatever that means).

You seem to be saying that because we can't measure an infinite value in reality that it therefore means that infinity does not exist in mathematics. That is clearly wrong. Infinities occur in many places in mathematics. When that is in a physical theory then it generally means that the theory is no longer applicable.

Some interesting research into why some people look younger than others. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36133475 There has been some recent discussion on the forum on the evolution of pale skin. It is easy to imagine how this could be a selection factor - people are, perhaps, more likely to choose a partner who looks younger and, therefore, healthier. And, because of the genes involved also has pale skin.

That seems backward (or at least circular). The Planck time is defined as the time taken for light to travel one Planck length (and there is "no reason to believe that exactly one unit of Planck time has any special physical significance"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time There is currently no evidence that space or time are quantised and my understanding is that in theories which are based on this idea the smallest lengths and times are far smaller than the Planck units.

I suppose the argument is that because we don't know all the details about how DNA came about then it must have been created fully formed. It is a version of the Cretinist "irreducible complexity" argument. And it is equally invalid. We know that some viruses use RNA, a simpler molecule than DNA. We also know that many of the component molecules that can be used in the creation of RNA and DNA can be found in nature (even in space). So although we don't know all the details about how life arose, we certainly don't need to invoke magic.

Ouch. I was going to go for "critical thinker who expects a higher level of evidence."

1. OK. You insist that the word "orbit" can only be used for a stable 2-body system. Although that is idiotic, let's avoid the word from now on. 2. As you reject a simple example (and I can't think of any examples that might be more familiar) you will have to learn the physics rather than just by analogy. (Which we know you are incapable of, so this thread is over.) 3. Kepler is only relevant for objects in stable elliptical orbits. We are discussing things which are not moving in simple elliptical paths around a central mass. Therefore Kepler's laws are irrelevant. 4. We don't need to do any such thing. You need to learn a little about the physics involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem