Strange

So you don't object to people not applying / ignoring / disregarding / abandoning these irrelevant laws?

I think you are using the wrong equation for time dilation. It should be: [math]\Delta t' = \frac{\Delta t}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/math] Which gives a time dilation of 0.6614378277661477 at 0.75c. And 0.125 at 0.99215674164922c (the sum of 0.75 + 0.75)

No. There is a vast amount said and written about religion by philosophers, poets, politicians, theologians, musicians, scientists, artists, atheists, priests and prophets. No. Although it is irrelevant to subjects such as physics, there is a large and fascinating amount of scientific study of religion. https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=scientific+study+of+religion

OK. But that is quite a different argument. But ... the laws work fine because we can ignore them at that point as being not relevant. No?

I still don't understand the difference between "abandoning" and "not relevant / not applying". If I don't apply the rule because it is not relevant, then I have abandoned it. if I abandon the rule because it is not relevant then I have not applied it. I guess there is some subtle difference in meaning you are trying to get across, but I don't get it. Perhaps because no one else can see the distinction you are trying to make?

Also, wouldn't it get terribly crowded around the edges?

Why do you think anyone should believe you?

If all galaxies are moving apart then, after an eternity, there should be no galaxies visible. See also: Olber's Paradox. Sadly, it seems you are incapable of comprehending evidence.

I don't think you have mentioned faith healing before. If that is what was being ridiculed, then it is entirely reasonable. (Unlike some here, I don't approve of ridiculing religious people just for being religious. Only when they are ridiculous.) If you had said you were going for homeopathic treatment (which has no religious connotations) then I assume you would have been equally ridiculed. So you weren't being ridiculed because they were atheists, you were being ridiculed because they were rational.

So what are they? What is a "derivatives from angle"? How does that relate to factorials (n * n-1 * n-2 *n-3 ...) or "something else" (whatever that is)?

This is what I don't understand: what is the difference between "abandoning" and "not applying" ?

Just repeating something (with no logic or evidence) doesn't make it true.

That doesn't see right. That would mean A = P2 / (a+b+c) Which, if P is the perimeter means: A = (a+b+c)2 / (a+b+c) A = (a+b+c) Which is not right.

He would still need to have explained, and provided support for, his belief.

As you have already completely misrepresented one discussion on another forum (post #51), I would suggest people take this with a pinch of salt.

Judging by your posts here, they may have just been ridiculing your lack of logic ...

You haven't previously asked many questions, apart from general ones like "does it make sense?" (no). By the way, have you noticed the "Quote" button below each post? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82164-the-quote-function-a-tutorial-in-several-parts/ It is very hard to separate what you are saying from what you have copied from others. No. Only that they explain what it is a measure of. The permittivity (I assume that is what you mean) can be expressed in several ways, which of these do you think is significant: [math]F = \frac{A \cdot s}{V} = \frac{J}{V^2} = \frac{W \cdot s}{V^2} = \frac{C}{V} = \frac{C^2}{J} = \frac{C^2}{N \cdot m} = \frac{s^2 \cdot C^2}{m^2 \cdot kg} = \frac{s^4 \cdot A^2}{m^2 \cdot kg} = \frac{s}{\Omega} = \frac{s^2}{H} [/math] where F=farad, A=ampere, V=volt, C=coulomb, J=joule, m=metre, N=newton, s=second, W=watt, kg=kilogram, Ω=ohm, H=henry. No. Yes. If there were antimatter particles throughout space, they would interact with and be annihilated by the matter particles thatw e know are there and we would see distinctive gamma ray spectra from this. Electric charge is an inherent property of certain particles. Gravity is a result of the curvature of space-time by mass (and energy). Not yet. The CERN Alpha project is preparing to measure this. But there are good theoretical reasons to think that antimatter must have the same gravitational effect as ordinary matter. http://alpha.web.cern.ch/node/248

Because I don't believe the scientist said that. I think the reporter misquoted/misunderstood him. If the scientist does think that, then he has as little basis for it as Gater (i.e. none). (Note: I would [and do] equally question anyone who insists the universe is finite.)

But you said: So which is it?

That can't be right. There is whole field of science devoted to the scientific study of dreams in a scientific way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneirology So you are saying that my indifference to football is a sport?

Is it relevant?

So, no evidence to support your crude beliefs then?

Then why did you complain that people were ignoring Aristotle? Aristotelian logic is, as you say, irrelevant. You seem to be one of those who interpret any disagreement as an emotional response. But actually, both "sides" seem to be in violent agreement on this issue: Aristotle's logic is irrelevant to QM.

I don't remember you saying that. But in that case, why have had to put up with eight pages of you repeatedly saying atheists should do this, that and the other?

A very brief intro to the statistics behind Bell's theorem: http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm A longer overview of the topic: http://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem.htm