Strange

Thank you. (You are, of course, not wrong.)

Once. About 50 years ago. I have forgotten much of the detail. What specifically have I missed? I assume from the same general area where the rest of the stories come from: Mesopotamia, the "Fertile Crescent", the Levant and the Mediterranean more generally. As well as information shared from more distant cultures - but I guess that much of that wouldn't have seemed so relevant (e.g. warning not to eat plants that are unknown in the region). Of course, similar stories would have existed elsewhere as people learned not to eat certain plants, animals, fungi, etc. Of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic And that is the only reason that AIDS became pandemic; again the virus has been (in some form) around for millennia but only affected a few people locally.

No. Neutrinos only interact via the weak force.

It is not a new virus. The reason we (the world outside the areas where infection occurs) are more aware of it today is because of better communication. It is also more likely to spread over a larger distance because of greater numbers of people living together and travelling from one place to another. The Ebola virus appears to be several thousand years old (in the sense of when it diverged from the Marburg virus): http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/8/800.abstract Presumably their common ancestors had been around for many thousands or millions of years. Nice use of the strawman there. Almost didn't spot it. Why do you say they are "old" fruit? If you saw nice fresh fruit dropped from a tree would you pick it up and eat it, or climb all the way to the top to get your own? That is probably why the rules are so broad and provide no justification. Early humans would have noticed that people are more likely to get ill from certain types of food and, over time, these would have been considered "bad" or "cursed". If they had known about germs the rules would have talked about the importance of washing your hands and cooking your food properly. There are a very large number of these food-born diseases and parasites, so I am not sure why you are drawing a connection with the Ebola virus, which is not common in the areas where the rules originated. They are more likely to be caused by hepatitis, salmonella, shigella, vibrio, clostridium, norovirus, and various parasitic worms and protozoa.

Of course it does. The expanding universe ("big bang") model is based on GR which is, as you now know, treats space-time as a static 4-dimensional manifold (the "block universe"). You may be able to visualise this by an analogy: as you move away from the north pole, the lines of latitude get longer (expand). Similarly, at increasing coordinates along the time dimension, the spatial dimensions of the universe get larger. This makes no sense. What does "current" condition mean when you are talking about past, present and future? I intended that as a slightly satirical comment because I couldn't believe anyone would really think that. A supernova is an event - something that happens at some specific point in space and time (x1,y1,z1,t1). Your perception of it is another, separate, event that happens at a different point in space-time (x2,y2,z2,t2). There is no concept of "now" in any of that. You might choose to label the event where you perceive it as "now" but by the time you say that it is already in the past (and therefore not "now").

Something which is neither deterministic nor predictable. In other words, real life.

Units don't matter? So 5 pints is the same as 5 miles? You are the one who doesn't seem to get it.

This is the most surreal thread I have seen for a long time!

This is just the same old nonsense about "two nows" and a "universal now". It is hard to imagine how that can make sense to anybody. You seem to think that something happens again just because some light from it happening reaches you. Presumably that means that it happens an infinite number of times as the light passes every point in space. And that is why you are proven to be wrong. Again. Neither of those statements are true; neither can be true in the universe we inhabit. Unpredictable and non-deterministic are separate concepts. Quantum effects are non-deterministic but predictable (at least in terms of probability). Simple classical systems are deterministic and predictable. Chaotic systems are deterministic but not predictable.

You seem to be confusing the time it takes light to reach you with the rate at which your clock ticks. Does your clock tick at the speed of light? So you admit you were wrong about that, at least. Good. Chaos theory certainly didn't. The whole point of chaotic systems is that they are completely deterministic. But unpredictable.

That doesn't make sense. Speed (of light, or anything else) is measured in metres per second (or equivalent). How can you define time in m/s? I suppose you could define the "speed of time" as 1 second per second but that is pretty meaningless. That is not the definition of simultaneous. If A is closer but you see it at the same time as B, then A obviously happened first. I don't see how that follows.

And where does that say "matter [or a body] is energy"? And in what way is energy "an identifiable collection of matter, which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation, in 3-dimensional space"?

I can't see why it would do any harm. My impression is that anything that helps you relax will help you learn. There is a lot of related research but it isn't obvious if any of it is directly relevant to your case: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=listening+to+music+improves+learning This is close: http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/14/6/317.short

That "bizarre book" was written by one of the key developers of QED. So I think he understands the theory pretty well. If QED had been disproved, I think it would have made the headlines. And there would have been Nobel Prizes. Although, to be fair, my (limited) understanding of QED is that not only does every possible path of the photon have to be taken into, but also every possible speed (including faster than light).

At best, an analogy. More like a fairly meaningless soundbite to sell a book.

They may be equivalent. They are not equal. Mass can be converted to energy and vice versa. But they are not the same thing.

Well, when you (repeatedly) make untrue statements, what do you expect? And no one disagrees with that. Why are you still flogging a dead horse (or dead strawman). There are two forms of geocentrism: weak ("the Earth can be the centre of the universe", which is true but meaningless) and strong ("the Earth is the centre of the universe", which is clearly false). So what. Belief is irrelevant in science. Evidence. It means that it is "special" in some way. If that were true, then physics would be different because it would be possible to detect that fact, measure absolute motion and absolute velocity, and so on. In other words Lorentz invariance would be violated. It isn't therefore "strong" geocentrism is wrong. You have mentioned this before but failed to explain the relevance. Why is that? Then this discussion is pointless. If you are not interested in science or evidence, just your religious beliefs, why are you posting here. The CMB has been known for much longer than 20 years and has been much discussed in many places over the decades. What is the point of all these lies? Everything is the same whether the Earth is still or moving. That is what "not privileged" means. That is why your belief is not supportable.

How exactly do they differ? (Apart from the fact that Lorentz invariance is more general because it takes into account what we now know about special relativity.)

Your list of unsupported claims is getting longer: 1. "GR is wrong." No evidence provided. 2. "Relativity was developed to disprove geocentrism." No evidence. 3. "Everything Galileo said is wrong." No evidence. 4. "A medieval priest invented string theory." No evidence. (I may be exaggerating that one. I have no idea what you are really claiming.) What next? The Earth is flat? I mean, it makes sense, right?

Of course it is. "Lorentz symmetry, the feature of nature that says experimental results are independent of the orientation or the boost velocity of the laboratory through space" http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29224 Really? Has he any peer-reviewed publications on the subject we should read?

Sigh. So why should we take your opinions on physics seriously? Because so many crackpots bring him up, I have. Not that interesting (unless your are really interested in the obscure details of different Christian heresies).

As Lorentz invariance has been tested to incredible levels of accuracy, this is obviously not true. Why make blatently dishonest statements like this? Only because he is a favourite of physics cranks on the Internet. So no evidence to show GR is wrong then? So we can safely ignore that claim. And no evidence of people claiming that relativity was developed to disprove geocentrism? So we can safely ignore that claim as well. Anything else?

You say that things were immobile at time zero and later they were moving at the speed of light. Presumably in the time between they were moving at some intermediate speed. What were they immobile RELATIVE TO? What were they moving REALTIVE TO? What is their speed RELATIVE TO? Where did I say anything about gravity? Relativity shows that objects cannot travel at the speed of light, yet you claim they do. Therefore you reject relativity. Perhaps you could show us the maths for how this works?

"Motionless" by itself is a meaningless term, as Galileo showed. Do they? And do they have any evidence for that claim? So geocentrism makes as much sense as Kepler 452b-centrism. I don't know what your point is. What does this have to do with the subject? The CMB is an almost perfect black body spectrum, it is almost perfectly homogeneous, it is almost perfectly isotropic. The very tiny variations tell us something about the condictions in the early universe. (They also tell us that Earth, our galaxy, is moving relative to the CMB. So, if anything contradicts geocentrism in favour of CMB-ism) What are you referring to? Actually, I'm not sure what any of these numbered points refer to ... Relativity allows geocentrism as one possibility. So what? How is that "working against itself"? So you claim. But you haven't said who these people are, why they say that or what evidence they have. The evidence says otherwise. Science is always open to possibilities, but you need to provide some evidence that GR is wrong, if you want to argue against it. People get bored of explaining the same thing over and over, and then being ignored. You seem unwilling to learn, and just want to push your religious beliefs. That isn't really interesting to people on a science forum.

There are a lot of statistics showing the increase in survival rates and survival times over the last few decades (for example: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/survival/all-cancers-combined#heading-One- just the first search result, there are many others). You can be certain that these are due to modern treatments (and improved diagnosis) not "alternative" treatments. (As someone said: "You know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine.")