Strange

I don't think modifications to the way gravity works can explain all the observations. From what I have read, this requires a different modification to gravity for galaxies and galaxy clusters. Dark matter (as matter) is required to explain gravitational microlensing, it is required by models of large structure formation, and so on. That seems to be the preferred model: that it is a particle, or class of particles, that do not interact. In some models, there are particle-antiparticle annihilations which should produce distinctive radiation. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150820082508.htm

We seem to have got way off topic. Getting back to your original question, if it were possible for dark matter to decay into matter, or vice versa, then I assume such a process would release energy (and hence be detectable, in principal). But this would also imply it was a largely one-way process, which would mean that the amount of dark matter had increased or decreased over time (depending which direction is energetically favourable). As the amount of dark matter appears to be roughly constant (as far as I know) I guess this (and the absence of detectable radiation from dark matter) could be used to set an upper bound at which such a process could occur.

Purely from the perspective of design, this is not surprising. To show there is something special about this particular image, you would need to show that other designs of similar complexity (ideally from the same culture) did not have the same sort of symmetries. Also, why would you expect to find a hidden message in this image when it was surrounded by text describing the person who was buried there, etc.

Those cells are made of quarks; nearly all their mass comes from the quarks (well, actually, the energy binding the quarks together). Quarks are clearly the main component of matter. </devilsadvocate>

Art history.

This is quite a good, not too technical, explanation of Bell's Theorem (which is what you seem to be referring to): http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm With more detail here: http://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem.htm

Except I didn't say that. It is pretty annoying to be so grossly misrepresented. Please take more care in future.

The definition of "matter" becomes fairly ambiguous at this point. Atoms are made of electrons and protons and neutrons. So I think many people would consider them (constituents of) matter. But protons and neutrons are made of quarks? Are they "matter"? If so, are all hadrons?

I think this is an erroneous assumption. Most design involves use of symmetry and patterns. If you look at examples of Western art you can draw lines connecting significant parts of the image (eyes, limbs, people, etc). For example: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UNLIvLNVY34/UqLN4ilWsoI/AAAAAAAACmY/gRheufXKY-o/s1600/Reni+-+St+Sebastian.png(just the first one I found). You can also see there is some rotational symmetry in the lines on that painting. So I wouldn't be surprised by, at least some of, the things you observe. It would seem almost certain that there is a lot of symbolism in the illustration, most of which is now lost to us. If you look at the 16th century portraits, you will see all sorts of objects in the background such as a skull, an extinguished candle, coins, a wine glass on its side, a pocket watch, soap bubbles, a mirror, roses, a pearl necklace, a pipe, books, sculpture ... These all mean (or meant) something. Some of the meanings we can only guess at know.

But if dark matter particles don't interact via anything other than gravity, as is generally thought, then they won't form structures to be broken down.

If anyone can, Feynman can. Or not ... http://www.sciencealert.com/watch-richard-feynman-on-why-he-can-t-tell-you-how-magnets-work

The theory which describes this is quantum theory. I think the first paper on this was published in 1935 by Einstein and others: http://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777 There is not faster than light communication; it is rather that the two particles, although separated in space, act as a single system so any measurements made must be consistent.

Slaves in Rome, for example, had quite a few rights. Including taking their masters to court for mistreatment.

I would suggest looking at the examples in post #43. That should give you a pretty good idea.

You are just inventing a definition that allows you to ignore evidence you don't like. I have lost count of the number of times you have done this.

As the question raised was about the historical reality of Jesus, then obviously the focus would be on the NT. None of those say "everything" in the bible is metaphorical, as you claimed. In fact the second says, "The Bible is a book in which metaphors play a central role." See that? "play a central [but not only] role". Maybe English isn't your first language? You might want to consider not being a smart-arse. Especially when you are wrong. A book which uses a number of primary and secondary sources to present a reasonably accurate, if sometimes biased, view of historical events. I started reading it but gave up when it was obvious that the authors were either liars or gullible idiots. "We"? Really? Often, but not inevitably. Which is why your comment was not logical.

Yes, of course. You are right. The universe just turned to chocolate but we just haven't realised it yet. Wilfully ignorant and irrational. Bye.

That is just ridiculous. Open your eyes: look around you. No, that is not the reason. (That would be an example of the measurement problem, a completely different thing.)

No one claims that any model includes everything.

From what exists now. Not from what we can see now. OK?

Actually, it begins with Æ (ash) !

I agree.

That is a different (non-standard) definition of event. How do you know that? It seems very unlikely. You won't know if it takes everything into account until you are open minded enough to learn about it. You seem to be saying: "I have this idea that obviously no one else has thought of so the models must be wrong." And you know what. It does.

Sorry, I don't know much about AI or approaches to it (I only picked up on the 1s thing because someone else mentioned it). I have read arguments for and against it (hard AI) being possible. The arguments against seem to come down to "but the brain is magic", while the arguments for seem plausible. I think you said that copying the way the brain works isn't necessarily the only or even the best way to go about it. That seems sensible. It might also open up the possibility of an intelligence totally unlike ours. Which would be interesting.

No. It is copyright infringement.