Strange

I don't think you understand (or you are being deliberately evasive. You can only define the speed of an object relative to another object (at the same time). So, when you say the universe is moving at the speed of light, what is it moving relative to? You are discarding it by saying that things move at the speed of light. The rest of your comments get increasingly incoherent. Were you drunk when you posted this?

As far as I can tell, those are all confirming what you have already been told: there is no definition of absolute rest so you can choose anything as as the centre of the universe: the tip of your nose or the red spot on Jupiter or a planet in a distant galaxy. It makes no difference: you just choose the most convenient coordinate system for what you are doing.

So is the OP copied from someone else's blog?

But maybe more should have been left out. A lot more. And maybe you should get a blog (or a publishing deal) ...

So you are saying the universe spins faster and faster until it is spinning at the speed of light? There are several problem with this, that I can see: 1. What is this speed of rotation relative to? 2. Nothing can move at the speed of light; unless you are totally discarding relativity 3. The speed within a rotating object depends on the distance from the centre 3a. So at what distance is stuff moving at the speed of light? 3b. Where is this centre? I don't know where that idea comes from. I was simply asking what you are measuring speed relative to. (As we all know, there is no absolute speed.)

Huh!? They are examples of how "american" is not a homogeneous identifier. Just because we have a word for a set does not make all members of the set the same. Do you think that "plants" counts as a homogeneous group simply because we have a name for it? (If so, then the OP's claim is true by definition; but also absolutely pointless.) Er, yes. Guess why that would be... Your contention was that the fact you would choose a particular destination proved that America was a homogeneous group. Now, obviously, not all individuals will make exactly the same choice (some might be married to someone from another country and would choose that as their destination, for example). But your choice only supports the OP's position if most Americans, regardless of ethnic background, religion, language, political ideals, etc would also choose Canada. In other words, a sample of 1 is not much use as evidence. You mean people disagree with you? Ah, diddums. Yep. Yep. In this case a literal straw man argument. Well done. What are your qualifications for lecturing us on philosophy?

Interesting paper. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but it sounds like a plausible model.

Light always travels at light speed. So what makes you phase four any different from anything else? No, I mean what is the speed relative to?

It doesn't, actually. Speed of what? With respect to what? Well, you got that bit right.

You need to consider other factors. For example: - Cats are very small while giraffes are very large. What do you think the significance of this might be? What other data would you need to eliminate this as a factor? - Cats are carnivores and predators. Giraffes are vegetarian and (potentially) prey (although probably not of domestic cats). What do you think the significance of this might be? What other data would you need to eliminate this as a factor? (I'll give you a clue: many predators will hunt, get one large meal and then spend hour or even dyas sleeping. On the other hand, animals that east leaves and fruit need to eat almost continuously to get enough nutrition. Also, animals that may be hunted tend to spend a lot of time awake to minimize the time they might be eaten.) Do you begin to see a problem with choosing just two data points and trying to create a hypothesis?

Do you have some calculations, or a reference, to show this is true?

Even if there were such a link (which you have not demonstrated) you need to remember: "correlation is not causation". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation For example, there is a correlation between frequency with which men shave and their risk of heart disease. It is very unlikely that shaving more often prevents heart disease. You also need to rule out false correlations. For example, there is a strong correlation between the number of people who drown by falling into a pool and the number of films Nicholas Cage appeared in. Or between the age of Miss America and the number of murders by steam, hot vapor or hot objects. http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations Therefore you need to do some work to rule out some other common or confounding factors.

There is a zero-energy universe theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe But total energy is not well-defined (or conserved) in GR: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

Of course it isn't. It may be the the least homogeneous identifier in existence (other than "human"). There are Irish-Americans, African-Americans, Japanese-Americans and on and on (America seems quite unusual in having this naming scheme for all these ethnic groups, presumably because it is so diverse). Oh, and let's not forget native Americans. Quite. That only supports the OP if you think all Americans would make the same choice.

The keyword you are looking for is "metamaterials". For example: http://www.iop.org/resources/topic/archive/metamaterials/

I was reminded of this thread by Putin's recent assertion that Sepp Blatter should get a Nobel Prize ...

Yes, on some Intel architectures, you have to enable hardware virtualization support in the BIOS. (I can't remember any more detail than that, either!) The Ubuntu installer does seem to be one of the best - and best documented - but I find their new desktop environment even more incomprehensible than Windows 8!

If you use the word "universe" to describe the "multiverse" concept (assuming you reject that term), you will need some new terminology for the thing that exists between the observable universe and what is described by "multverse'; i.e. the thing we currently call "the universe". The big bang theory doesn't say anything about how (or even, if) the universe came into being.

I have used it on 64 bit hosts, running 64 bit OSes. Is there anything other than a free version? Sorry, can't help with that. Hopefully Arete's video is useful.

There is a Windows program called PartitionMagic which seems to do a very good job of manging partitions. You could use this to resize the Windows partition to make space for a Linux partition. Most Linux installers are pretty good at explaining what they are doing and which partitions they will use. The alternative, which avoids having to reboot your machine to switch between OSes, is to run a virtual machine and install Linux on that. https://www.virtualbox.org/ You can then create multiple virtual machines if you want to try different flavours of Linux (or BSD or ... even Windows).

The etymological fallacy isn't (just) about science. It is universal. If anyone appeals to what a word "originally means" then they are almost certainly wrong. For example, the English word decimate means "to severely damage or destroy; to reduce greatly in number". It does not mean to kill one in ten centurions or any such nonsense. (Because English really, really needs a word meaning that.)

Apart from the small detail that we know there is no such thing. Observer B may not agree with you about your relative distance. And observer C may have a different idea, again. Only if you have agreed to use the same coordinate system. It meant "one" when the word was created. This might be an example of the etymological fallacy: "deeply mathematical work that suggests there might be multiple universes must be wrong because Latin". If you like, you can retcon the "uni" bit to mean "one (of the possible instances in the multiverse)".

Please provide the source(s) for this data. (Otherwise, I will treat it the same way I would at work: assume you have invented it.) Please provide some evidence to support this claim. This claim appears to be completely ludicrous. So please quantify this effect: - How often do we yawn before sleep? - How often does this cause tears to flow? - What is the volume of these tears? - What is the pH of this fluid? - What effect does this have on the pH of the body? Please provide some support for this claim. Please provide some evidence from this paper for the claim that "in the morning due to sleep Must be high acidity". Because I can't see any. I assume that you are claiming that this is because kainic acid is acidic? Rather than because it activates neuroreceptors. If so, please provide some evidence for that. Please show a connection between the pH of seawater and that of the fish. Also there are other marine animals that do sleep. How does your hypothesis explain that?

A curious lack of information on the company website. It doesn't even have Nagel's (or anyone else's) names on it; the "Team" page is blank... Ooops. Cross-posted with mod warning

As the experiment (and all the variations) produce exactly the predicted results, what fundamental question is not answered by it? I can see there might be fundamental questions about the interpretation or meaning of QM, but this experiment is so well explored, and fails to show any hints of new science that I would be surprised if any insights come from it. In other words, if someone comes up with a new hypothesis that extends the current theory, I imagine any experiment to test that would be very different from this.