Strange

People can only react to what you say. That was a perfect summary of your statements. As you have no idea what science is, that is a fairly futile exercise. That is the fallacy of "argument from authority". So we can disregard your opinion on that. I think you need a new dictionary. The word you are looking for is "literal", not scientific. Your "definition" is just your personal opinion. Therefore not scientific. (Or even literal.) Oh, the irony.

Citation needed. But so what? He is not a philosopher and he is wrong about that (if he said it). There are a great many things not amenable to scientific investigation (which is why philosophy is not dead). Yet another reason why you are wrong. You explained nothing. How does the "scientific lion" differ from any other type of lion? So your personal definition of "good" is metaphorical and not realistic. You should probably ask the mods to move this to Philosophy (or Speculations).

Philosophers have been thinking about and debating the meaning of "good" (and "evil") for thousands of years. As you are ignorant of all this work, it looks like you have a lot of catching up to do. It doesn't apply to all human beings (some people don't have sight). But are you saying that anything which all/most/some humans experience (dreams, hunger, emotions, sleep, irritable bowel syndrome, etc.) are all "scientific"? Even if, like sight, it is a purely subjective phenomenon. This is a very odd definition of scientific. The usual meaning is related to creating mathematical models, making quantitative and testable predictions, performing experiments and making objective measurements to test those predictions, and rejecting ideas which are not supported by that evidence. How does that apply to sight?

They are descriptions of subjective experiences. In what way are they "scientific"? You mean you will post the same repetitive, self-centred nonsense you have posted many times before?

You are wrong. It is a terrible definition. It presupposes that the only "good" is that which makes you feel good. This is a childish, selfish, shallow and generally stupid definition. http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=good

This is your personal choice for what "good" means. It is an opinion, no more and no less. The fact that it is your opinion does not make it "scientific" (quite the reverse, given the nonsense you spam forums with). It is, in fact, a pretty selfish and shallow definition of "good".

So it seems that, in most parts of the world, these Asian religions have largely displaced older native religions. Is this good or bad? I don't know. Will it have any effect on evolution? Well, it has certainly affected cultural evolution in all these places. I'm not sure how (or if) it has affected biological evolution.

Well, it was your (baseless and apparently untrue) assertion. I thought you might want to explain or justify it. Says the man who ends every sentence with an exclamation mark ...

What does that have to do with "all of us are linked with God" ?

Are we? How do you know that?

Assuming by "win" you mean "earn", you can presumably provide some evidence that wages have fallen in real terms (over some significant period, say 1 or 2 generations)?

In many cases, there is nothing wrong with your maths, in the sense of making a mistake, it is just irrelevant to the question. The fact you can't see that is part of the problem. Seconded.

Maybe. I don't know anything much about Polkinghorne, but the only comments about dark matter I could find were where he confirmed it does not behave like normal matter. Firstly, there is no evidence that ESP exists. Secondly, there is no evidence that this mysterious energy exists. What sort of energy is this? Does this also explain why unicorns are invisible?

Is this true? In my time in Asia, I found that the dominant religions in most countries are Christianity, Buddhism, Hindu or Islam. (Of course, these are all Asian religions; maybe that is what you mean?) These had largely displaced older, native religions. Although aspects of those had been incorporated into the "new" religion. But this appears to be identical to the situation in Europe: older, pre-Christian religions have been replaced, but aspects of those pagan ideas have been incorporated into European Christianity. The same is true in South America. So I would guess it is also, largely, true in Africa. Do you mean, does culture develop in a similar way to biological evolution? I think there are parallels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocultural_evolution There are probably ways in which biological evolution is affected by culture, as well.

What am I missing? Surely, you will only get a standing wave if D is a multiple of λ. So, as soon as you move S, you destroy the standing wave. The position of the detector has nothing to do with it.

There are, of course, an infinite number of wrong theories. But people posting their personal theories on science forums, only seem to post the same 2 or 3 wrong theories.

Who is he/she? Why do you mention the fact they are Christian? Where is this work published? Are these theories or just speculation?

If dark matter had the same properties as normal matter then it wouldn't be "dark". That appears to be a non-sequitur.

The distinction between "mainstream" and "speculation" made by this, and most other science forums seems partly to do with where the works is published. For example, there is a lot of "speculative" (as in unconfirmed) science published in peer reviewed journals. That is generally OK to discuss in the mainstream sections of the forum even if it isn't yet (and may never be) part of mainstream science. So, as ajb suggests, get your work published in a (reputable) journal and then try again. The other aspect is whether one is promoting or just asking about an idea. So it is usually OK to discuss some crank theory from Vixra or someone's web site, but not to promote it as being correct.

I bet something eats it.

A related bizarre shortcoming is the lack of a Japanese keyboard or input method. Despite years of development, Android still looks like something that was put together as a fun project by some interns.

Then what is the problem?

Just so Jon G doesn't think there is anything to it, what Theoretical did was to use the results predicted by QM to produce the same results as QM. Not terribly interesting.

I'm sure there are also people annoyed by their right-wing anti-immigration stance and the fact they don't present enough information about the problems the refugees face. <shrug> Similarly, at every election there are letters of protest claiming the BBC is biased in favour of both the left and the right. I assume this means they have got the balance about right.

What about the the colonies of animals that live around hydrothermal vents; the food chain there doesn't depend on photosynthesis. (Does it have to be human food?)