Strange

Invoking God is not logic, it is faith.

On the other hand, people are too good at it. See also: Pareidolia. I could come up with an alternative explanation of the diagram he ends up with every day for the rest of the year. Every one of them would be based on things we know exist. And would be therefore infinitely more probably than science fiction ideas about alien overlords. After all, as they say: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No one is going to accept such outlandish claims based on some arbitrary manipulations and an ad-hoc interpretation of the results.

The thing is, if you come up with an alternative explanation for something which already has a good explanation, then you are saying that the old explanation (tidal effects) is wrong: despite all the evidence in its favour. So now you need to come up with a new explanation for that. And that will probably invalidate some other bit of physics that you now need a new explanation for. Science isn't about unrelated factoids. It is a complex and mutually supporting set of theories. You can't just change one part without needing to make massive changes everywhere else. That is pretty much what gravity is. It is not a force, it is things rolling down the curvature of space-time (mainly the time bit). But: (1) there is no suggestion for what those "other terms" are and (2) you would then need to discard general relativity and replace it with something else (see above).

What about tensors and spinors? And surely, most people who are jaywalking do it because they do have an objective: to get to the other side as quickly as possible.

Derek Lowe's "Things I won't Work With" blog is always good for a laugh in the dangerous chemicals department: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/category/things-i-wont-work-with

Did he? What evidence do you have for that? It might explain the increasing levels of nonsense you are posting.

There are several flaws. One is that you are just choosing a representation of the reals in binary. This is no different from representing them in base 10 or base 423. Therefore, it is trivially true that the set of numbers represented this way has the same cardinality as the set of reals, because it is the same thing. Also, by using the undefined term "the set of all binary numbers" you try to imply that this cardinality is the same as some set of integers (represented in binary). However, this is obviously not true as the binary representation of a real number is (potentially) infinitely long. And therefore not a member of the set of integers. Following paragraphs appear to build on these errors and introduce other errors due to this sort of informal reasoning.

What do you mean by "noise"? In signal processing, it is an undesirable signal. So if you are trying to listen to a quiet conversation then it would be noise. But if you were trying to listen to the music, then the conversation would be noise. On the other hand, noise can be defined as a random mixture of all frequencies (e.g. white noise). In which case it definitely isn't music. And what does "symmetry of noise" mean?

Fairly obviously, yes. Or about 10-7 Hz in more normal units. Have you noticed that it takes about 24 hours? So that would be about 10-5 Hz, I think.

Actually, it has been known (reasonably) to be the Higgs mechanism for over 50 years. It was direct detection of the Higgs boson which took a long time. (And the only reason it was called the God particle was for marketing reasons.)

That is not what it says. After all, your version is trivially true. Murphy's Law is a little simpler than that. It is a good precautionary principle in engineering but, as others have said it isn't a "law". I don't see how.

You don't have to imagine. I worked it out for you (in one of my "insincere" answers). Whether that is true for all planets is left as an exercise for the reader ...

It might make a lot of sense to you but: 1. Have you calculated the amount of energy the electron has and how much that will disturb the interatomic bonds (after subtracting the energy that is converted to light by the detector)? 2. Why would detecting which slit the particle (electron or photon) went through - even if that is done after it has hit the screen - change the behaviour? 3. By coming up with an alternative explanation you are effectively saying that quantum theory is wrong. In which case, you also need to come up with an alternative explanation for how all the components in your computer work.

How are answers 3, 5, 7 and 9 NOT "sincere"? The physical reasons why spinning (or orbiting) would have an effect was explained and quantified. The method of calculation was shown so that you can go and do the same for the remaining planets. What would a "sincere" answer be? One that says: "Why, my man, you are a total genius. How have physicists and astronomers never understood that they have got everything wrong before now. Well its back the the drawing board for them and a Nobel Prize for you, my friend." Perhaps next time you should start by telling us what answer you expect and then we can guess what half-formed question you had in mind. Would that be "sincere" enough for you?

The one that begins "The binary expansion of a real number ... " See how much easier it would be if you presented your ideas here as the rules require.

Humans understand poetry, music and art which are beyond logic. No they don't. (And no it isn't.)

The Higgs doesn't mediate gravity (that would be the graviton, which is still purely hypothetical). What it does it give mass to (some) particles. It is called the "god particle" because of a moronic marketing decision by a book publisher. (The author wanted to call his book "The Goddamn Particle" because it was proving so hard to find. The pathetic publisher apparently thought this might offend people and changed it.)

If you want to discuss this, then you need to present your argument here. (Then we can see how many people spot the error in paragraph 2 that makes the rest or your argument moot. Or even wrong.)

As far as I can tell, every response has answered some part of your questions: with science and quantitative results. As you are so ungrateful, don't expect any more help from me.

Why not work it out for yourself. My guess is that in all cases, it will be similar tiny fraction. Probably similar to the errors in estimating the mass in some cases. Apart from which, our calculations of the mass of the planets must include any energy components.

So I make the Earth's kinetic energy due to its orbital speed about 2.6×1033 J (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.5+*+%28earth+orbital+speed%29^2+*+%28mass+of+earth%29) Which is about 3x1016 kg or about 5/1,000,000,000th of the mass of the Earth. So still insignificant.

Why not try and quantify this. According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy The kinetic energy of the Earth due to its rotation is 2.138×1029 J. This is equivalent to 2.4x1012 kg. To quote my favourite radio program: is that a big number? No. It is about 1/10,000,000,000,000th of the mass of the Earth. It will have no noticeable effect.

Then you are not doing science. You are just indulging your science fiction fantasies.

Nowhere does Einstein's theory mention 10 dimensions. What is a "10 dimensional galaxy"? Can you show, in appropriate mathematical detail, that the Einstein Field Equations work in 10 dimensions? Or even in anything other than 4?

Actually, it just helps you visualise nonsense. No we don't. Please show your working. I would say the probability of existence is 1; because it exists. It seems like a variation of the idiotic "if we don't know everything then we don't know anything" argument. Wibble.