Strange

I assume the only reason you refuse to answer questions is because you don't care.

The effects of gravitational lensing are very small unless light passes very close to a very large mass. Therefore we don't see any significant distortion of the view of distant stars because of it. However, when things are nicely aligned, we can use gravitational lensing to get a better view of very distant objects. For example: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2003/01/image/a/ Also, very small amounts of gravitational lensing can be used to map the distribution of dark matter: http://www.nature.com/news/dark-matter-mapped-at-cosmic-scale-1.17311

Sorry, I must have confused by your opening statement ("There is no place in science for 'toeing the line' with some 'doctrine' or 'consensus'"). I assumed your were talking about science not politics. I never mentioned AGW; I was commenting on the importance of evidence. I assume we agree about that (in principle, at least).

This is simply not true. A good summary of the early research into black-body radiation, and its role in the formulation of QM (hardly "disregarded"), can be found here: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/Q/quantum_theory_origins.html Perhaps you could provide some data to support that? Citation needed. So water has no gaseous phase? Where does it go when heated to its boiling point? How do distillation and steam engines work? Why is there condensation on the inside of my windows?

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Black_hole Not quite. The maximum spacetime curvature happens at the singularity, nit the event horizon, and it is the event horizon that defines a black hole. (And the singularity probably doesn't exist.) It is the result of the mass of the black hole which is, as you say, concentrated at the center of the black hole (for a non-rotating balck hole, anyway - for a rotating black hole it is slightly more complex). You seem to be confused by some (rather poor) attempts to visualize the curvature of spacetime. This is a slightly more accurate image: http://www.quora.com/If-gravity-is-because-of-curvature-of-space-time-what-results-in-the-earths-own-gravitation-force But note that trying to show what four dimensions looks like is impossible, even when it isn't curved. That is why the maths is more important than pictures. Both mass and energy (and other things, such as momentum and pressure) contribute to the gravity of an object. quarks are bound by the strong nuclear force - nothing to do with gravity. The type defined by the Einstein Field Equations. And for non-rotating black holes, the Schwarzschild solution to those equations. For a rotating black hole, it is the Kerr metric. Correct. The Einstein Field Equations describe the curvature of space-time. As "down" is defined to mean "towards the center of gravity" then it is reasonable to describe the curvature as downward. This is espeically apparent when you consider the Gullstrand-Painlevé metric instead of the Schwarzschild: http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html Correct. A black hole is spherical (at least, in the case of a Schwarzschild black hole). They are not holes, but the name is not going to change: you will have to learn to live with it. No, there are completely different. In the case of the early universe, the problem was simply that the average path before the photon would be absorbed again was very short. Nothing to do with the curvature of spacetime at an even horizon. Wrong. I don't think anyone is going to throw out the theory of General Relativity because your guesses/intuition don't agree with it.

In principle, nothing. For example, quadratic equations always have two solutions. However, x = n / 0 has infinitely many solutions. That is what "undefined" means. Presumably, one could define new rules of arithmetic where n/0=17 or n/0=n. But I doubt it would be useful.

Can you prove (mathematically) that this is the case? This is a common claim made by people with their own personal theories. Oddly, none of them are able to come up with a proof. I hope you are different.

That would be a mistake. You should rely on the evidence rather than the word of individuals, however great they may be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Or something else?

Based on what ajb said, there is only a conflict if the religious choose to create one. This is not necessary and I'm sure the majority of religious people don't see any conflict.

Reminds me of punched tape... (the good old days)

Did you read anything more than the headlines? Obviously not. The rate increased to 16 in a week. SIXTEEN. This is evidence that the disease is coming under control, not evidence that it is out of control. Eliminating the disease completely is difficult because (unlike Europe and the US) these countries are very poor and have very limited health infrastructure. There are also people spreading lies about the disease not existing and that the whole thing is a conspiracy. That is why ignorant fear-mongering like yours is so dangerous. I thought most people understood how dangerous this disease is. That is why so much effort has gone into trying to stop it (admittedly it started late, by all accounts). How many of those people are from areas where Ebola is? What "more disclosure"? You have access to information (and misinformation) about it. You seem to choose to remain ignorant and try and spread fear instead of learning.

I'm going to go for "neither". What has entropy got to do with colour?

I'm not sure how that is any different. Theories can be, and often are, wrong. If that weren't the case, then science would not make any progress. I would never say anything so foolish.

You keep saying that, but your only refutation of all the evidence seems to be "la-la-la can't hear you" And again, that is not what the article you referenced said. I assume you didn't even bother to read it.

While that is a refreshing change from the common claims in Speculations that all science is wrong, it is obviously not true. Science is often wrong.

Have they? There has been a total of 76 confirmed cases in the last 21 days. Compared with a peak of 300 to 400 per week in Liberia alone. As facilities were rapidly put in place to cope with huge numbers of new cases, I think they can safely treat 76 cases without "piling them up in the streets". Several countries have been declared Ebola free. Have there? Please provide a link to a (reputable) news source with some examples. No mention of that doomsday scenario here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-28755033 We are ready. How many people have contracted Ebola outside of Africa? I'm pretty sure that is zero (during this outbreak). Yeah, of course. I'm part of the conspiracy covering it all up. You should join us: the pay is fantastic. But they don't provide health insurance for some reason... This appears to have been written by someone in need of psychiatric treatment. Although, he is smart enough not to put dates on any of his fairy tales so people like you will think IT IS ALL HAPPENING NOW!!!!1! Because everyone is DEAD!!!1!!!

No, it has just dropped out of the headlines, as these things always do. Really? Then why don't you provide details of any? I assume these were all people who had been working in Africa? Forum rules stop me saying what I really think about this. Let me just say it is one of the stupidest and most ignorant statements I have read for a long time.

That might be because the article in question doesn't appear to exist on that site.... Unless he meant this of course: http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/one-hundred-months-a-technical-note That will allow others to judge just how much Harold has misrepresented/misunderstood the argument being made.

This seems to be treating nothing as a "thing" rather than the absence of anything. It doesn't seem to make much sense to apply the word "existence" to nothing; it is, after all, the absence of anything existing. Clearly, in any absolute sense it is purely a concept. There is nowhere where there isn't some amount of matter or electromagnetic radiation or whatever. However, it is often a useful approximation to say, for example, that space is empty. Not having boundaries does not imply infinite. The surface of a sphere has no boundary but is finite. This sounds like a version of Zeno's paradox; which is addressed by the concept of limits. Or if it is infinite; in which case there is no first or last, and no need for repetition. This sounds like a complete non-sequitur. Perhaps you need to explain in more detail how you reach this conclusion.

What does "standard motions of simultaneity" mean?

The movie is in the news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33173197

Selection. The ones that survive get to produce more offspring that are also likely to survive. Those that don't survive (for long) produce fewer or no offspring (which are also less likely to survive) and so that line soon dies out. Survival breeds survival.

Your usual high quality of citations, I see. However, having gone to that website and done a search, I see that isn't what they said at all. So you seem to have given up any pretence of accuracy, or even honesty, in your claims. And now you are using Prince Charles as an expert witness? I don't know anything about your mate Gore, but Charlie is an out and out anti-scientific nutter. (and I'm a monarchist!)

We are 4D as we have both spatial extent (three dimensions) and a (limited, sadly) temporal extent (the 4th dimension).