Strange

You consistently fail to produce any evidence or other support for your claims. So the safest assumption is that they are wrong. There is a large amount of evidence for dark matter. (If you want to discuss that, you could start with a question in the mainstream physics section.) As an absolute worst case, it is hypothetical. However, the evidence is pretty overwhelming in favour of it being matter. Please provide some evidence that (a) these effects are misunderstood and (b) that you have a better understanding.

Convoluted but accurate, as far as I can tell.

What he actually wrote was: Actually, what he wrote was in Latin. This translation is from I. Newton, The Principia, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, translated into English from the Latin of the third (1726) edition by I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, assisted by Julia Budenz (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1999) We can use = rather than [math]\propto[/math] when the constant of proportionality is 1.

How about: (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Second-Law) Is that one sentence too complex? We can break it down: The acceleration produced by a force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the force The acceleration produced by a force is in the same direction as the net force The acceleration produced by a force is inversely proportional to the mass of the object. OK? Actually, point 2 is only covered if you use vector notation in the equation...

How about: (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Second-Law) It is "equal" when you use a system of units that makes the constants of proportionality equal to 1.

What do you mean by "circulation of matter"? What type of matter? And what it is circulated through? And what does DNA have to do with it? How does this differ from what is currently known about the metabolism, reproduction, etc of organisms? (Which is also driven by DNA.) What about organisms and environments that have no exposure to the sun? True.

And yet, many of the actions that the wealthier countries want to take have been blocked because the poorer nations don't want it to unfairly penalise them.

Citation needed: please provide a reference to the peer-reviewed paper or papers that do this. Or perhaps you could stop inventing things that people don't do. There is some evidence for this, for example: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~kossin/articles/nature07234.pdf But like much in science (natural science, in particular) it is not (yet) conclusive. (As you provide no source for your claims, I won't comment on them.) Or you have created yet another strawman argument.

It is about the rules of the forum. You agreed to them when you signed up. Why not just tell us what your idea is: what do you think drives evolution and what is the evidence for it? (Much against my better judgement, I did look at your website and I am none the wiser. So a summary here might help.)

This monomania is a bit tiresome. However, ... Earthquake forecasting is more akin to weather forecasting, which is generally pretty accurate nowadays (and getting better all the time). But earthquake forecasting will never approach that sort of accuracy. The equivalent of climate forecasting would be long term trends in seismic activity as tectonic plates shift around, etc. I don't know if that is practical (or useful) or even being researched. I have spent much of my life living in earthquake zones, in the shadow of volcanoes, in various parts of the world: they have been the best places I have lived.

Maybe you could clarify what you find unsatisfactory with the explanations you have been given so far. Otherwise people will just repeat the same things...

No one is stopping serious scientific progress. Certainly not Santilli. I find it worrying that someone involved in real science cares about the existence of people like Santilli. And even more so that you think it is worth posting on a forum about it. Few people here are in any position to do anything about it either way.

No one is going to take them seriously so I really wouldn't worry about it. People will either laugh at Santilli's ludicrous antics or they will see that it makes him look even less credible. Or both.

Luckily, there is an extraordinary amount of extraordinary evidence that the extraordinary rises in CO2 are largely man-made. I know. Extraordinary, isn't it.

Santilli is a well known crackpot. Why would anyone care about being attacked by him. Ignore it.

It is a rule that it requires more energy to turn them than you can get out. TAANSTAFL Or: You can't win (first law of thermodynamics) You can't break even (second law of thermodynamics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Fair enough. "Less value" would have been more appropriate.

Pretty much everything about your physical appearance is related to your DNA. (The scar and tattoos, not so much. )

I think the clue is in the name: if they were in a vacuum, there would be no wind to make them turn. You mean use the electricity you generate to turn the wind turbines? That seems like a waste of electricity...

Can I second that. I'm sorry if my comments have come over as too negative - I wouldn't want to put you off exploring ideas like this...

Propagation delays in wires are one of the limiting factors in the speed of electronic circuits (even on-chip wiring where the distances are pretty small).

No, but I believe any (very small) differences are compensated for (swansont could provide more detail than you could possibly want ).

Cosmological redshift is not only possible, but quantified, by the laws of physics - namely the Einstein Field Equations. Can you provide calculations to show how the observed redshift matches gravitational effects?

The second is defined as: the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.

OK. That is a bit clearer. It would seem that this is not a hypothesis or a theory, it is STBO: Stating The Bleeding Obvious. For one thing, colour is part of the definition of a species. A horse with black and white stripes is not a horse but a zebra. If you had blue bears and green bears in the same location, then they would be considered different species. Therefore your idea is true by definition in most cases. And, of course, similar species in different locations may have different colours because of the environment. I don't see anything new or interesting here, I'm afraid. Humans are rather different from most other species as they show a much greater variation in phenotype. (Dogs show even more variation.) But, obviously, most people in Africa are dark skinned (and those in some areas are, typically, darker than others). While those in northern latitudes are generally light skinned. Those in between (e.g. around the Mediterranean) often have a skin colour somewhere between the two. Although this varies a lot because of migration, etc. And when you look at something like hair colour, then the story become much more complicated. After all, there are blonds in northern Europe but not many blond Inuit. And there are blonds in southern Europe as well. But the colour isn't unique. Someone with pale skin could come from almost anywhere in the north (or south). Someone with dark skin could come from almost anywhere in Africa and many other parts of the world. And, of course, polar bears are actually black like many other bears so I don't see how this helps at all. We already have much more accurate ways of determining these things than using something variable like skin colour. There are many other characteristics used to define a species. And, of course, we have DNA analysis. What does "2 species of the same kind" mean?