Strange

Apparently, copying and pasting a link is advanced technology, not available to all so allow me to help.... Here we go, it took me a few hours, but I managed it: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Germany/

I have no idea what gives you that idea. If there are posts where I have done that then report them to the moderators (and I will apologise for doing so). Not knowing mathematics is not a "mental issue". But it is readily correctable by a little study. Why not devote a few months to learning some basic maths so you can understand the objections to your idea?

You need to buy one from a certificate authority.

And that attitude is why you are not a scientist.

GR explains why massive objects will move towards one another (in the absence of other forces). I don't see any problem with describing this as "attraction". But your only objection is to the choice of words; I assume you have not found an error in the Einstein Field Equations. All mass and all energy is taken into account in the EFE. Kinetic energy is slightly more complex as it involves momentum, which is another factor that contributes to the curvature of space-time. And yet galaxies do orbit one another in clusters. Your dislike of a particular word does not change either the theory or reality. If that were true, you would tackle the models behind the words, rather than just attacking the words. Where is your proof that the Einstein Field Equations, or any of the standard solutions, are wrong? Where is your evidence that the models don't work?

If you have such compelling evidence, why not submit it to a scientific journal for review and publication? Ah, spreading the "Good News". You do sound more religious fanatic than scientific observer. Hallelujah.

No one has suggested that. That completely misses the point. It is not about your claimed knowledge, it is about your belief in your competence: you believe that, despite not knowing much mathematics, that you can make statements like "it doesn't change anything" with certainty and dismiss all counter-arguments.

I assume you are, once again, unable to back up this claim with anything other than a vague memory?

Really?

Actually, he always said it wasn't intended to be pejorative, just catchy. Another bit of trivia, Hoyle and LeMaitre (one of the main people behind the big bang model) were really good friends. So much so that one time, after LeMaitre had given a presentation in London Hoyle drove him back to Belgium (I think they took several days for the journey, stopping to eat and drink along the way).

Instead of constant meta-discussions and snide comments about others, how about answering questions about your claims. Could it? Can you explain how the components of DNA could exist in a plasma?

Really? No, apparently you don't understand. And this is where Messrs Dunning and Kruger come in. You think you know enough to say "it has no other effect" but you are unable to formally define what you are proposing in order to prove this.

Which definition is that? Have you heard of GPS? Probably. Who claimed it is possible?

Please present the evidence to support these "facts".

Could it? Can you explain how the components of DNA could exist in a plasma?

There have been examples of high resolution CAT scans being used to read ancient scrolls which are to fragile to unroll. Whether this could detect the presence of an extra sheet of paper or not, I don't know. I imagine it would be a pretty expensive process. You could approach a university or lab and see if they would be interested in trying it - it could be some fun publicity for them if it worked.

It wasn't; I'm sorry you got that impression. It was intended to help you understand what you need to learn to be able to (a) communicate your idea in a clear and consistent manner and (b) understand the arguments against it. Part of the problem is that you don't seem to understand that this "one simple change" has enormous implications for the way numbers and arithmetic work.

Also, it isn't clear how plasma-based life (if it exists) could be the seed for carbon based life.

Then your logic is flawed. Perhaps you could show the logical steps that lead to this conclusion? Or are you just using "logic" to mean "it makes sense to me". Then why come to a science forum? Science deals with real evidence, not "common sense". Where is the centre, then?

I find this very odd, and a bit worrying. You have shown repeatedly that you don't have much knowledge of the most basic maths concepts. And yet you claim to have some new insight. I would suggest you take of the many online math courses that are available; you could try Coursera for example. An introduction to calculus would be useful, but that may be too advanced for you right now. https://www.coursera.org/

That would seem to answer the original question: they object to contraceptive methods that (they believe) involve loss of life, they don't object to other things that don't.

It is possible that the whole universe is not expanding; there are a number of models along these lines. However, it is almost certainly more than just the observable universe. Whether the universe had a beginning or has always existed is currently unknown. You have no evidence for your contention. The centre of the expansion is everywhere: everything is moving away from everything else with a constant scaling factor. Perhaps the easiest way to visualise this is to imagine running things backwards: then all those widely separated galaxies would get closer and closer until they were all in the same place and that is where it started: everywhere. Well, the evidence is definitely against you there. It is an inevitable result of the laws of physics, including the speed of light, being independent of your state of motion. And, not only has it been experimentally confirmed, we make use of it in technology. Well, the maths works. Whether they exist or not is another question. That won't be affected by you thinking they are silly.

I suspect that was the Nobel prize. And yet both the theory and the implementation worked as expected. So I don't see the point of this little story. I also notice that you provide no source. So why shouldn't I assume you have made it up?

Ooh. That's a third question I hadn't thought of. 1. Was the universe created? (Don't know) 2. If so, was it created by someone or something? (Don't know) 3. Is there only one universe? (Don't know)

This is complicated by the existence of mimicry. Other plants may mimic the preferred flower in order to attract pollinators, on in the case of carnivorous plants, prey. They may also mimic the insect (*). Other animals may mimic the insect either because they are predators who don't want to be spotted or because they use it to scare off potential predators (e.g. hoverflies, which look almost identical to various species of bees and wasps). (*) https://xkcd.com/1259/ (This is not completely accurate, but it is a nice story...)