Strange

No. Force and mass cannot be equal. They are different things. This is close. As long as you remember that the magnitude for each have different units (because, as above, they are different things). True. But that is just stating one particular case and so is of no real value.

It still makes no sense. Apache software is produced by volunteers (which makes it "unofficial" by your definition): http://www.apache.org/ The official version is produced by volunteers. Also, you are permitted to produce your own version of Apache. And you are even permitted to offer it for sale. (As long as you comply with the license terms.) It is no more or less official than any other version. Yours would be the official "Sensei Apache".

This is the "god of the gaps" argument (or "FSM of the gaps" argument ). Just because we don't (yet) have a theory for the earlier state of the universe doesn't mean that anyone can just make up their own explanation(*). "Don't know" is always a valid result in science. (*) Well, obviously, they can. It just isn't science. Related to which, I am always surprised when religious people with an anti-science agenda object to the big bang model. I would have thought they would jump on the pop-sci version as a "creation story" (and highlight that one of the founders of the theory was a Catholic priest).

How is that relevant? Are you saying that only Microsoft software is "official"? Or only non-Microsoft software is "official"? Or either are "official" but you mustn't mix them? (So we can't run open source software on Windows machines?) Your argument makes zero sense.

No it doesn't. A naive extrapolation of GR to scenarios where it may not be valid does that. Which is why no (other than science journalist) does it. There are several models which avoid a singularity entirely. ALL theories are approximations of reality with limited domains of applicability. That is the state at which energies exceed those at which current theories can be applied with confidence.

What makes Mono "unofficial" but PHP (for example) "official"? There are probably many of the same authors involved. Is it the fact that there is no spec available for the .NET APIs for the Mono developers to use? But then there is no spec for PHP or 99% of the rest of the Linux/GNU framework so it is no better or worse than the rest of the OSS world.

Those "third party hacks" are the basis of all Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP code. (Which is why some people are still scornful of Linux as a platform - it isn't that long ago that I heard one major OEM describe it as "written by amateurs in their bedrooms").

Note that the idea of a singularity of zero volume is not part of the mainstream big bang theory; this just describes the evolution of the universe from an early hot dense state.

That doesn't have anything to do with the magnetic field, though.

Clocks don't measure motion. They work perfectly well when stationary. And I don't know what "counted by standard of simultaneity" means. Especially in regard to a single clock.

Remember, Wikipedia is written by volunteers, many of whom are amateurs. And it is not edited (in the professional sense). So while the science pages (in particular) may be technically accurate, the quality of the writing is very variable. Don't confuse this with the quality of the science!

It might not be 1; it depends what units you are using. If you measure weight in pounds, force in newtons and acceleration in furlongs per fortnight per hour then ... [working out the value of k is left as an exercise for the reader].

I still have absolutely no idea what your theory is. You need to explain it more clearly. (Note that is not actually a "theory"; it is more like a hypothesis, or just an idea.) Typically, a species will have the same colour(s) everywhere it occurs. There are animals that vary in colour in different locations: for example, polar bears and arctic foxes are white, while European bears and foxes are brown. But these are different species. In general, animals have evolved to suit their surroundings so many animals that live in cold places have light or white fur (and may change according to the time of year). Those that live in jungles have patterns to hide them. Those that live in desserts are sandy coloured. But, again, they are (generally) different species in each location. You need to do (at least) the following: - Define an objective way of categorising the colour or colours of an individual organism - Define an objective way of categorising the range of colours in a group of organisms (in a location or in a species) - Define an objective way of defining the relevant characteristics of a location (whatever you think they are) - Do a large scale survey (you might want to limit this, initially, to a single species that occurs in a range of different locations) - Do a statistical analysis to show some sort of correlation between location and colour What do you think the benefits of this idea are? No it doesn't. You are using random pictures taken with different cameras under different conditions and subsequently processed in unknown ways. I have no idea what this means. You have generated two different colours from each picture. There seems to be no connection between the species and no connection between the colours. What is this exercise intended to show? It seems completely meaningless. I would wait until you have explained yourself before posting more random pictures.

You can write that, if it is acceleration you are calculating. (And k = 0.)

I think you are missing the point. There would have been quantum fluctuations in the early universe. It is generally agreed that it is these (following expansion) that led to the the small scale inhomogeneities that allowed the large scale structures and galaxies, stars, etc to form. A pool ball is perfectly smooth at some scales but not at others. To claim otherwise, suggests you don't live in the real world. https://what-if.xkcd.com/46/ BTW, Note that inflation is just an idea. And at least one of the people who developed the inflation hypothesis (Steinhardt) no longer thinks it is a good (or necessary) solution to the problem. But I am not really familiar with his latest ideas.

It is not so much that is is assumed to have been anisotropic to start with, it is more the question "why should it be isotropic at all". Made worse by the fact that the CMBR is an almost perfect black body spectrum and is almost perfectly isotropic. You may see maps showing temperature variations and a large "cold spot", etc. But these variations are minute; thousnads, maybe millionths, of a degree. And it is still isotropic (and homogeneous) - especially at large enough scales. Obviously, at the scale of our solar system, galaxy and even local supercluster it is neither homogeneous nor isotropic. But on a large scale it is. Remember, Wikipedia is written by volunteers, many of whom are amateurs. And it is not edited (in the professional sense). So while the science pages (in particular) may be technically accurate, the quality of the writing is very variable. Don't confuse this with the quality of the science!

Hardly. If it weren't for humans, we wouldn't be experiencing the current rapid increase in CO2 and associated warming. Of course, you can say that this doesn't matter at all, as far as the Earth itself is concerned. On the other hand, you could be a decent person and actually care about what happens your fellow human beings.

It is very unclear what you mean. In general, organisms of a given species have the same colour (or colours). There are species where this is not true, and there is a huge variety in a single species: cultivated flowers for example, where there are hundreds of different coloured roses, or tulips, or ... There is no reason to think this is related to location, as far as I know. Do you mean that one species will have different colours in different locations? Or that all species in one location will have the same range of colours? Or ... ? Your random collection of pictures, with no explanation, doesn't help in understanding your point. (And some of those are not even living organisms.)

It is possible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

1D = length 2D = area (length x height) 3D = space or volume (length x height x width) 4D = space-time (space + time)

There may also be some confusion over "bio" vs "organic" because, in many European languages, the translation of "organic" (in this sense) is biologique or similar. So, often, "bio" and "organic" mean the same thing.

Please provide some evidence that galaxies are (significantly) magnetised. Please provide some evidence that stars consist of antimatter. Please provide some evidence that stars and/or galaxies are positively charged. Please explain why the stars in these positively charged galaxies do not repel one another and destroy the galaxy.

I don't see where you have "acquiesced"; you have consistently stuck to the view that the question is about specific quantities of hydrogen and oxygen. It isn't. But it doesn't mean that.

The trouble is, the universe doesn't have an edge or a boundary, and certainly not one that is like the skin of a balloon. It is either infinite or it is finite but unbounded (like the surface of the Earth ... or a balloon). And matter is, and always has been, evenly distributed throughout the entire universe. So there is nothing to stretch and break. The universe does not (as far as we know) create matter and so it gets less and less dense (on average) over time.

No it doesn't. Hydrogen means the element, in general, or the gas. It says NOTHING about the number of atoms. You would deserve to fail this, or any other reading comprehension test, at this rate.