Strange

Why do you assume that c2 has a "physical meaning" or should have a name. If you measure the fuel efficiency of your car in litres per kilometre, then that efficiency measure has the units of area. Does that area have any physical meaning? I don't think so.

You keep saying this but have not produced a single example. Given the lack of evidence, perhaps we can safely assume it isn't true.

The only example I can think of is Eddington's opposition to Chandrasekhar's work on the formation of black holes (which barely qualifies, if you really stretch the meaning of the word "suppressed").

Which simply reinforces that, even outside of science, the consensus can change (in the face of evidence, or whatever). In science it just happens to be a lot easier to change the consensus than in, say, politics.

This "alternative view" appears to be largely unsupported by theory/mathematics and seems to contain a number of errors. For example: Time (and space) still exist within a black hole (although, interestingly, the time dimension is swapped with one of the spatial dimension at the event horizon). That is not a very accurate description of the formation of black holes. It is more that the curvature of space-time becomes so great that there is no path out of the event horizon. That is not what event horizon means. It just means that no events inside the event horizon can affect anything outside the event horizon. A black hole will increase in size as long as matter falls into it. Nothing to do with "time reacting with it". There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. If "slightly different" means wrong, then yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieliczka_Salt_Mine

I don't know what the relevance of that is. Presumably just being offensive for the sake of it. ("Look mummy, I said a bad word." snigger) So you think one single extreme example of the effects of a volcano changes the overall fact that they are not comparable to rising CO2 levels? (apart from anything else, volcanic activity has not changed significantly over the past several centuries - or even millennia). Mount Tambora. One of several examples of large volcanoes having a global (but temporary) effect.

That is true. And I am often puzzled as to why they won't do that. However, when people have done a proper, scientific analysis of UFO reports then nearly all of them have mundane explanations and a small number have to be classified as "not enough evidence to determine the cause". There is zero evidence of extra-terrestrials (or plasma amoeba). Have his "systematic observations" been subject to peer review, published and replicated by others? No? Then it isn't science. (We will skip over the fact he is also apparently a con man. Because, of course, that wouldn't affect scientific observations, just his personal unsupported claims.)

What do you mean "name it"? I choose to call it Fred.

It obviously IS something other than velocity. What is your point?

You have provided no evidence that this is the case. But you are adding to the mountain of evidence that these descriptions can apply to people with their own pet theories.

Just in case anyone missed it: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Rosetta_s_lander_Philae_wakes_up_from_hibernation

Yes, really. Your computer doesn't exist and the Internet is powered by unicorns. You have not provided even one example to back up your ludicrous claims of conspiracy.

Citation needed. Please provide some examples. Please provide some evidence of this. Yes! You've got it. That is how science works. Well done. This is exactly what makes science so successful. Now you have realised the massive benefits of this approach, perhaps you will stop your self-indulgent winging. Completely different. Once something is proved in mathematics, then it will always be true. Scientific results are always provisional.

You might be interested in this Wikipedia article which covers some of the reasons for animals having colours, and some of the historical ideas people have had for the reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_coloration

That's right. That is why science has not changed over the last few hundred years. No one has developed new theories of gravitation or the behaviour of microscopic matter. This is a tragic loss to mankind. Just think of the technologies that would have been possible, if science had been allowed to proceed: personal "computing" devices, a worldwide "internetworked" communication system, "global positioning" by "satellites" in space. All just science fiction because the moderators of this forum ... [That's enough. Ed.]

I think it is just A for Atomic mass number. As for Z: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_number

And the way to do this is the exact opposite of what you are doing. Imagine you have a friend who says that all seashells are white. You walk along a beach and he picks up a shell and says, "see, white." Then he picks up another, "white," and another, "white." When you pick up a yellow one, he says "no, the first thing that needs to be done is to show that all shells are white." This is what you are doing. To test your idea, you should look for cases where the colours of different species match (in the same photograph, if you insist). If you can't find any examples, then this does provide some support for your argument. Finding examples of the same species that do match does nothing to support your argument (and is, as I said originally, just stating the obvious). However, as there is a reason for the colouration of most species, then your idea will fail this test and so will have to be rejected.

This example highlights several of the flaws in your approach. Firstly, it is an example of cherry picking and confirmation bias. For example, I have known children of mixed race parentage who are darker than both their parents (and I'm sure there are examples who are lighter than their parents). There are plenty of examples of siblings, one of whom would be considered "black" and the other "white". So this "fits perfectly in between her parents" is nonsense. You said earlier "I am trying to demonstrate and prove or disprove my ideas." If that were the case, you should be looking for data that contradicts your belief, not for occasional examples that confirm it. This still doesn't address the problem of how you distinguish a lion from a pumpkin. Previously your response has been, "but you need to compare objects of the same species". And it therefore becomes an example of yet another fallacy: begging the question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Don't try and use infinities, or division by zero, in arithmetic.

No. This is how modern tests (such as the quantum eraser) are done. This shows that if you detect the "which path" information by using the "other one" of an entangled pair (so you do not directly affect the photon going through the slits) then you still destroy the interference pattern.

Except you aren't because the background is black. If you want to attempt to do this, then you need a white background. At least then you have some (small) chance of correcting for the lighting conditions. Most of what I have said is background knowledge that I hope would be well understood by anyone commenting on colorimetry or species definitions. Also, you are the one claiming a new iea, so the burden is on you to provide supporting evidence. But here is something on colour balance: http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/01/31/white-balance-explained-how-your-camera-corrects-the-colour-of-different-kinds-of-lighting/ Again, see above. This is well known. But... Here are a few links which show how colour is used as (part of) the identification of species: http://www.gardenswithwings.com/identify-butterflies.html http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/bombus/key_british_colour_info.html http://www.petsnails.co.uk/documents/species/id-your-snail.html As for species with a large variety of coloration: cats. And dogs. And birds: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00431.x/abstract But this isn't about opinion. It is about evidence and, in this case, facts. It might be your opinion that 7 times more women than men being born on some island. But if your opinion is not supported by facts, then it is of no more value than my opinion that the local forests are inhabited by unicorns (of the invisible pink variety). If you want to "do science" then you need to drop unsupported opinions and start presenting evidence.

As you don't know what the spectrum of the light source was (and what technology was used to capture the photographs, what the colour gamut of that technology was, what post processing has been done, etc) this is an utterly meaningless comparison. Also, you cannot (by definition) use black as a colour reference. Again, colouring and markings are part of the characterization of a species. But it is obviously not enough by itself. (As your many examples show). There are near identical populations that are counted as separate species. There are species which have a huge range of colours and patterns. Citation needed. As this is claim almost certainly false, please provide some evidence to support it. Citation needed. Neither the Wikipedia page on the Visya islands not the one on the people mention this remarkable "fact". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visayas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visayans

That is correct. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/sun.html (Although, as the Sun doesn't have a surface, I'm not sure it is very meaningful.)

There are som examples on this page of new species created by polyploidy: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

These are not really two principles, but just two different mathematical descriptions of the same thing. After all, Einstein's equations explain how an apple falls to the ground as well. Not sure why you say that. No one discounts the theory of relativity. It is a far more accurate and important theory than Newton's. Apart from the fact that all matter is affected by gravity, can you explain how Einstein's theory is relevant to CO2 specifically? So did Einstein. Valence electrons are shared between atoms to form bonds. So I'm not sure what you disagree with.