Strange

We know dolphins exist. Do you see the difference and the reason your conclusion is irrational?

What is the center of mass of the surface of a billiard ball? Where is the center of mass of a line around the surface of a billiard ball? How does the CMB back this up? Please take into account our motion relative to the CMB in your answer.

The lights will only draw as much power as they need - assuming they are driven at the correct voltage. If your power source/store is at a higher voltage then, as someone else said, you need some sort of DC-DC converter. If you are storing the energy in batteries then you will also need something to control charging. The complexity of this depends on the type of battery. For lead-acid batteries it is pretty simple. For large multi-cell Li-ion batteries (or similar) it will need complex charge balancing and battery management hardware. But all this should be available off the shelf.

I definitely wouldn't want to be locked inside a 1m sphere. I doubt that is even possible. Unless you cut them up first. Yep, I'm sure the one about being chased by the crocodile-unicorn is going to come true.

Not necessarily.

The current will be determined by the resistance of the circuit it flows through. One simple way of limiting the current is to put a resistor in series, but this is only practical for quite low currents because otherwise a significant part of the energy is lost in the resistor as heat. Otherwise you might need to design some sort of constant current source.

I suppose there could be. Why don't you present some evidence supporting this claim. Any evidence at all would be a start.

True, if you start both sides vibrating at the same time. But how about if you "flick" just one end ? Will that be isolated to one side by the fixed point in the middle?

I heard about some interesting research on the genetics of smell (and therefore taste). They had isolated a single gene which affects how people sense a particular compound. Some people think it sweet, others find it disugusting, some are hardly aware of it. It turns out that this compound is present in pork and, not surprisingly, most people in areas where pork is not eaten have the variant that means they find this compound unpleasant. (http://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/article/?id=14799) Edit: or it may be the other way round: where they do not have that gene, is where pigs were domesticated. So the laws against pork may simply be based on genetic chance (and then overgeneralised to other animals). The laws against seafood may be based on the idea that if you are desert nomads, then eating seafood might not be sensible. Few, if any of these ideas are really testable, though.

It may be tempting, but with no evidence it is also a little silly.

I have no idea where you get that idea from. Can you provide a reference that says that? How is that relevant? Mathematics is not a popularity contest. There is nothing to explain: there is no centre. You seem to be visualizing the big bang model as if it were an explosion.

Right. Of course, we haven't done that. Relativity doesn't say anything about there being a centre or not. However, cosmological models (based on GR) do not have a centre. It doesn't have to be infinite for there to be no centre. It can be "finite but unbounded" (like the surface of the Earth). I am not aware of any model that suggests that. The SURFACE of a sphere doesn't have a centre.

You can claim that. But being THE centre is NOT supported by relativity. I don't think he does. And that is part of the problem.

Exactly: relativity says that ANY point can be chosen as the centre. That is not what you claim. Therefore your claim is not supported by relativity. Can you explain why? 1. Relativity proves that no point is special, different, or THE centre. 2. Modern cosmological models do not have a centre at all.

Which is NOT what you are claiming. But also, as ajb says, in most cosmological models, there is NO centre. I assume that means that you are unable to explain how they are different? Why? Do you want to re-introduce the Phlogiston theory as well? The idea that diseases are caused by an imbalance in humors? That is shown to be false by relativity. You can't have it both ways.

Not necessarily. It depends a lot on many other factors: the levels of virus present in bats, how easily primates acquire it, how readily/frequently they transfer it to humans, etc. Disease transmission, especially between species, is more complex than you think. Not necessarily. One difference is that food-borne pathogens typically cause illness within hours. Therefore it is quite easy to associate the illness with the food. And this seems to be a fairly innate mechanism; I know a number of people who have gone off some type of food because they were ill (for unrelated reasons) shortly after eating it. On the other hand, the incubation period for Ebola and related diseases is days or weeks. How is anyone supposed to connect getting ill to something they did 3 weeks ago? Also, as you say, the disease is transmitted from person to person (as are many diseases). As people are in frequent contact anyway and not all of them get ill, there is no reason for them to associate contact with the spread of the disease (look how long it took for Semmelweiss's ideas to be accepted) There is therefore no reason for people to understand that there might be a "patient zero" and figure out how they got infected. As I said, I have read it. But thanks for the insights into my ability to comment. Apparently you can't be bothered to explain why I should read it again. So I can't be bothered to read it. How much have you read on virology, disease transmission, food born pathogens? Do you have the right to "speak intelligently" on these subjects? Maybe, but much of the material pre-dates that. I would stick with the evidence, rather than what is claimed in the source. How many of those poisonous plants are also good food sources? Maybe it was felt that the risk of people attempting to eat poisonous plants was so low it wasn't worth mentioning. It would be interesting to know if South American religious traditions include warnings about the need to cook cassava, for example. I have no idea.

In the sense of unidentified objects, maybe. It is a large and unsupported leap from there to unicorns (or aliens).

What do you base that distinction on? Your beliefs are exactly equivalent to those of flat earthers: irrational, based on mythology, unsupported by evidence, contradicted by much evidence, ...

You talk about it as if it were some sort of taboo. It isn't. It gets discussed. It even gets used - when calculating satellite orbits for example. The whole GPS system is based on geocentric coordinates. The "stigma" that you talk about so dramatically is purely in your mind. (Or is this one of the many lies you have picked up from Sungenis?)

No, they weren't the invisible pink unicorns. They were the deaf centaurs.

Because they haven't been detected by radar.

No, they are invisible to all electromagnetic frequencies.

True. It was just an afterthought, to suggest how the definition could be improved (if necessary).

Why would you describe that as a 75k share, just because that happened to be its price at some point in the past? The only relevant information seems to be the price you buy at and the price you sell at.

The strength of a magnet does not change with its location or external energy levels (unless that energy heats it above its Curie point). That is not a very precise definition; you would need to quantify what the size of that pull force is (in dynes, presumably, as you are using grams and centimetres).