Strange

Please show the prime factors of this number: 2260138526203405784941654048610197513508038915719776718321197768109445641817966676608593121306582577250631562886676970448070001811149711863002112487928199487482066070131066586646083327982803560379205391980139946496955261 From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_numbers#RSA-220

You appear to be comparing the caculated velocities of planets in the solar system with the rotation curves for a galaxy. There are a number of problems with this: 1. You don't say where all the numbers in the table come from 2. The expected velocities for planets orbiting a single point mass are completely different from those for gas and stars in a galaxy 3. Kepler's Law does not apply to galaxies. Dark matter does not affect the movement of planets. 4. You are not doing any sort of quantitative analysis, just showing two curves which look vaguely similar in shape. 5. Your justification appears to be that we are seeing galaxies in the past; but the same observations apply to our own galaxy, which is not in the past. 6. Kepler's law can be derived from Newton's law of gravitation. So if you are claiming Kepler's law is wrong then you are saying the Newtons law is wrong. So why does it appear to work to predict the velocities of planets? 7. How do you account for the gravitational lensing caused by dark matter? 8. How do you account for the fact that the observed amount of dark matter is required for formation of the large scale structure of the universe? 9. How do you account for the velocities of galaxies in clusters, which are not orbiting a single central point? 10. Your claimed mechanism ("the arrow of time points towards the centre of gravity i.e. the past is radially outwards") is meaningless. But apart from that ... +1 for attempting to quantify your theory. Even if the numbers are utterly irrelevant. So -1 for numerology.

I noticed that you ignored the only question in my post: How, exactly, are you going to distinguish these "messages" from random chance? In other words, how do you intend to rule out apophenia, confirmation bias, selection bias and all the other sources of error? You must have an objective measure of whether or not a communication has taken place. And that must be defined in advance. Can you do that?

And why should you or anyone else believe the wild claims of this "Bulla"? There is no evidence just ludicrous fairy tales. He appears to have pulled the wool over your eyes. But I don't think many people are that gullible. Especially on a science forum.

And how, exactly, are you going to distingiush these "messages" from random chance? Because of your wish to see messages in random events, how do you intend to rule out apophenia, confirmation bias, selection bias and all the other sources of error? You must have an objective measure of whether or not a communication has taken place. And that must be defined in advance. Otherwise you might as well be talking to my unicorn (she knows some great jokes). Your radio ham analogy makes no sense because: a) We know radios exist b) We know other people have radios c) We know that they use those radios to communicate d) We know they use Morse and or speech to communicate Those known facts allow us to receiive and understand radio messages. In contrast: a) Tubules are not the cause of consciousness b) These beings don't exist c) They don't communcate d) There is no way of distinguishing meaningful random events from meaningless random events (especially when they are all meaningless). So I think we can safely say that there is no such communication taking place. I'm surprised. It is a claim with as much evidence and rationality behind it as yours.

But somehow you do. I see no reason to take that claim seriously.

If there is no way of distinguishing this supposed communication from chance, then there is no communication. Would it? Really? This argument is often used by people claiming the government is covering up UFO contacts. It seems totally baseless and is just an excuse for lack of evidence.

Have you heard of "active SETI"? Where? There is absolutely no reason to think they are here. (Thinking that would, quite reasonably, be considered a sign of mental illness. Just like someone who really believed I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garden.) Two ideas with zero evidence do not add up to something meaningful. As they don't communicate with us and are totally invisible, then I think we can safely assume they are not here.

It is not clear what you are saying. Are you saying there is no evidence for the singularity? In which case you are correct. Or are you saying there is no evidence for the big bang model? In which case you are very obviously wrong.

Because he was investigating the properties of light. Prisms change white light to multiple colours, he wanted to investigate how this worked.

So do you have a reference to who these experimenters were? If so, that could be added to the Wikipedia page...

Or just over-simplified. <shrug> It's Wikipedia. You could post a comment on the Talk page; maybe one of the regular editors will improve the wording.

Which idea? And, of course it is possible. But is there any evidence? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism#Prisms_and_the_nature_of_light

It is no more arbitrary than suggesting we are being watched by invisible superior beings. In fact it exactly parallels it. The difference is, we know that planets exist, we know that human life exists, we know what conditions are required for human-like life to live. So it is quite reasonable to hypothesize that there may be another planet with similar forms of life.

Indeed. Photons are always a bit wavelike (frequency, interference, etc) and a bit particle-like (being quanta and localised in their effects). They are never one or the other. I don't think they did. That is just a kind of a "popular science" / journalese description.

Well, one important point is that photons are quanta. So when you send a single photon through, it will EITHER go one way OR it will go the other. You wont find a single photon taking both paths. Until you introduce interference, when it appears to go both ways. So one interpretation of this case is that it has started behaving like a wave and takes both paths. Note that this is an interpretation; i.e. a rationalization. It doesn't change what the underlying theory says happens. Other interpretations are available (I prefer to think of it as just a result of non-locality). Edit: just read your post again, and that is pretty much the same as what you said.

日本語.

Well, it could be. But with no evidence, there is no reason to think so. Do you really believe I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garden? I mean, it sounds right to me.

上手ですね！

Glass chandeliers have multiple pieces of shaped glass to scatter the light. That is the only practical application I can think of. Newton may have made his own (most people did make their own lab equipment then). Or pinched one from a chandelier.

There is no reason to think that a singularity represents any kind of physical reality. It is more plausible that it indicates that the theory is being extended beyond its domain - because it doesn't take quantum effects into account, for example. Yes. "I/we don't know" is always a good answer (especially in science.)

Are you assuming they fall towards each other starting from an initial speed of zero? If not, you would need to know their initial speeds (and I suspect for planetary bodies that would be the dominant factor; off the top of my head, I don't think the acceleration due to gravity would add much).

There are (apparently) some interesting correspondences between entanglement and (theoretical) wormholes between black holes, which may have been what he was talking about. But that is about the limit of my knowledge on the subject.

This page, I assume: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment I think that paragraph is just badly written (*). I think all it really means is that the experiment can be described purely in terms of particles (because there is no interference pattern). In other words, there is no need to consider wave-like effects. But, of course, you can describe it terms of waves. (*) It is badly written using pretentious terminology ("emitted into the entry port", "affirm"? who says that?) and hard to parse sentences.

That is not every other force; it is one force (electromagnetism). That may be unique.