Strange

Dark matter is not an alternative to gravity - it assumes gravity works exactly as predicted by theory. Yes, I think not having an atmosphere would do that!

Moving the goalposts again? If you can't define your hypothesis is, then this is just a complete waste of time. How can you test an idea that is undefined? It seems to be something like: Some species in the same location might have some colours in common, apart from some exceptions which don't, and these might be different from other species in the same region except the ones that aren't - but I can't define "colour" or how closely the colours will match but look at these pretty pictures... You missed out the fact that DNA works and your idea doesn't. (DNA can even identify previously unknown species - your idea couldn't even if it worked.) And, presumably, the same is true if they were two species of fish or two species of bird? You would consider other things like the shape or size, and then use the colour? So, basically, this comes back to the way colour is currently used to identify species? You look at all characteristics, including colour.

OK. I haven't seen "climate" applied to such short term changes before. Still, hardly relevant to the long term climate change caused by CO2... Another of your brilliantly specific references. I am guessing this is the paper with Hansen's predictions: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/91GL02788/abstract I suppose it would be a waste of time asking you for a reference to where these predictions were confirmed? (But it is nice to see that you don't dismiss climate models as worthless.)

Grow up and stop trolling.

I don't think that works. You end up with something which is not a number in your scheme. For example, if we take x=5 and y=4, then X=(5,5) and Y=(4,4) and applying your rules: X * Y = (x1,x2) * (y1,y2) = (4,5) Y * X = (y1,y2) * (x1,x2) = (5,4) X * Y = (x1,x2) * (y1,y2) = (5,4) Y * X = (y1,y2) * (x1,x2) = (4,5) So you end with two possible values, neither of which is correct - it should be (20,20).

It seems to me much simpler, and easier to analyse, if you always treat numbers as vectors (pairs) rather than just "magically" converting them when doing multiplication and division. Using z1 and z2 for all is confusing. How about: X * Y = [x1,x2] * [y1,y2] = [x1*y2, x1*y2] which is not commutative because Y * X = [y1,y2] * [x1,x2] = [y1*x2, y1*x2] != [x1*y2, x1*y2] Edit ... No, it seems that multiplication doesn't work like that... Earlier you said that: 0*A=A and A*0=0 Which means: 0 * A = [0,1] * [a,a] = [1*a, 1*a] = [a,a] = A So it looks like the general rule might be: X * Y = [x1,x2] * [y1,y2] = [x2*y1, x2*y1] But: A * 0 = [a,a] * [0,1] = ? = [0,1] = 0 It may be too late at night, but I can't see any way to fit that into a general rule. In other words, I can't see how you can say what the result is of X * Y without having special cases for X = 0 and/or Y = 0. So it seems to me to be a completely ad-hoc process, rather than part of a formal scheme defining a new number system.

Most objects are not held together by gravity. Solar systems and galaxies would fall apart. Planets might if they are spinning fast enough, I guess. Smaller things wouldn't.

You still don't have a model (and therefore no supporting evidence is possible) just a string of pictures and assertions.

I think the problem is that people are still interpreting your notation as representing numbers, as we understand them. So when you say: x/0=x/1 People are seeing this as a/b = a/c in which case it is easy to show that b=c (in other words, 0=1). However, your symbols do not represent number but vectors which, if I understand correctly, are defined as follows: All real numbers, r, are represented by a vector R = [a,b]. When r=0 then a=0 and b=1 so R=[0,1]. For all other r, a=r and b=r so R=[r,r] The rules for the basic arithmetic operations are (I think): X + Y = [a,b] + [c,d] = [a+c, a+c] X - Y = [a,b] - [c,d] = [a-c, a-c] X * Y = [a,b] * [c,d] = [a*d, a*d] (which is why it is not commutative) X / Y = [a,b] / [c,d] = [a/d, a/d] I don't know how other operators would work (e.g. XY) or complex numbers. I'm sure someone could work out whether it is possible to have a consistent arithmetic based on this system. If they could be bothered. I assume equality on these vectors would be defined as: X=y iff a=c and b=d.

Did that affect climate? Look what up?

Because the two equations are equal. x/0=x x/1=x Therefore: x/0 = x/1 Divide through by x: 1/0 = 1/1 Therefore 0 = 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_density

So no (current) effect on climate then. And how would the unchanging rate of volcanic activity counter the increasing levels of CO2?

Doubt what? That once upon a time in the distant past, massive, continent-wide volcanic activities could have changed the climate and caused mass extinction events? No, not really. That volcanoes are relevant to climate change today? Yes, very much.

Do you have any evidence that volcanoes have any effect on climate (apart from, possibly, a few early episodes such as the creation of the Deccan Traps)? So? My irony meter just broke.

No. It is just an interesting scientific hypothesis. Not at all. The big bang model says nothing about a beginning or creation.

As you don't have a model or any evidence, there isn't much to say, really. However, I would pick out this claim as being completely unsupported. There are models that give the universe an infinite age; perhaps because it has a cyclic nature (collapse and re-expand) or because there was an asymptotically long time before expansion started. Many such models remove the need for inflation. There is zero evidence for it having a beginning. As you like non-mainstream models, have you looked at Nikodem Popławski's work?

Very good points. We can compare a zebra, a panda, a skunk, a Dalmation dog and a Holstein cow, for example. (Maybe two of those don't count as they are not "natural".) Or maybe a Heliconius charithonia and an Idea leuconoe.

I haven't used it (and I don't know if it would be appropriate for this) but this looks quite good: http://pencil.evolus.vn/ Or Octave: http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/(but it might be overkill) Or iPython: http://ipython.org/

Your abbreviation of these vector quantities so that they appear to be scalars may be part of the communication problem, then. Just to clarify, what are the values of the other combinations? a(z1)*0(z2) = A a(z2)*0(z1) = 0 a(z1)*0(z1) = ? a(z2)*0(z2) = ?

Sometimes. Not always. And, obviously, they don't need to be. Religion also changes over time as people's understanding of the world changes. Some changes in religious doctrine are even driven by science. Shock!

Can you define what you mean by "instinct"? I assume, from the context, you mean: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct In which case, these are behaviours that have evolved for a particular purpose. For example, single celled organisms will move towards areas that have the characteristics the need (nutrients, light, or whatever). This is simply because those that [have the genes that cause them to] move at random will not survive as well as those that [have the genes that cause them to] move towards sources of food. (But they will survive better than those that [have the genes that cause them to] move away from such necessities). At this point "natural selection" (you might have heard of it) comes into play: those that are genetically better able to find food will grow and reproduce more successfully than those that that are not. The same argument applies to the more complex behaviours of more complex organisms. Spiders whose genes cause them to build better webs, will reproduce and survive better than those who make poor webs. The successful genes are passed and we get "better" spiders. Is that the sort of thing you are thinking about?

I can't tell if you don't understand the words you are using or if you just make up random stuff as you go along. You said: Therefore, NOT commutative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutative_property

Of course, that would be true if the Earth were a (flat) disc as well. One question for sunshaker's "friend": why would there be this massive international conspiracy to cover-up the true shape of the Earth? And how has it been kept secret for thousands of years, with millions (possibly billions) of people in the know? How can it not have a horizon? Is it indoors? Oh look, horizon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salar_de_Uyuni#Gallery Indeed. I think sunshaker just has to accept that his "friend" has some strange, irrational ideas. Someone on another forum joined the flat earth soc's forum and explained, using simple physics, why they were wrong. He was banned and all his posts deleted. Have you never been in an aeroplane? Of course it isn't. </patronising tone> That is certainly true. Which is, presumably, why you are willing to entertain your "friend's" ideas, and make such a good job of defending them.

Curvature is (I think) maximum at the centre of the Earth but, as you say, the forces due to that curvature cancel.