Strange

There is no evidence that charge is made of anything else. It appears to be one of the fundamental properties of matter.

Wait until you try explaining to someone in Speculations why they are wrong, how they are failing to communicate their idea clearly, and that they need supporting evidence. They will almost certainly respond by telling you that they are right, you are wrong, and it is your fault you can't understand.

Within or immediately after his lifetime. How many more times are you willing to go round this same loop?

Of course not. It was created (by someone) several hundred years after Jesus was supposed to have lived. Good grief. Name one other contemporary source.

The reason is its instability. The cause for it decaying at a particular point in time is non-existent.

All from one source. (See what I mean about herding cats?)

As it was (supposedly) an Emperor who had him crucified, why are there no records of that?

It was tempting...

Next, you need to lean a little basic physics. Not really. Massive objects, and even clusters of galaxies, are bound together by electromagnetic and gravitational forces. This is why we only see evidence of expansion on very large scales. Perhaps you have an alternative explanation for galactic red-shifts, the CMB, the amount of hydrogen and helium in the universe, and all the other evidence for the big bang model. And, as you are discarding general relativity, perhaps you can provide an alternative but equally accurate explanation of gravity? Here's an idea: why not aim the laser at where the moon will be in 1 second?

I can't find a source for this 30% - there seem to be a lot of people repeating it (many of them very dubious sources, such as conspiracy theory forums). The nearest I could find is: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0815oceancarbon.html Which says: So nowhere near 30%. It does say: So I suppose someone might have totally misunderstood that. Why do you think UV has anything to do with it? And why would the minute amount of radiation from Fukushima have any effect (don't answer that: you have another thread on that topic, which I am avoiding).

Just repeating this doesn't make it true. You will need to provide some evidence. If there were electrostatic repulsion it would have to be strong enough to overcome gravity. In this case, the stars in galaxy would repel one another and galaxies would not form. Citation needed. Ah, yes the quantum frobnitz effect at work causing microscalar twiddlyboms. So why are galaxies locally bound by gravity? Why do we only see expansion on very large scales? Dark energy is required to explain the accelerating expansion; not just expansion.

Which is why I don't really understand why the word "atheist" exists. Only to those who believe she exists. To people who don't believe she exists, God is not important (but the fact that some people believe in her might be).

But they are not contemporary either. So are presumably just using the same source (the NT).

That is why I said "at rest" (with the "with reference to the surface of the Earth" implied).

There is no value in saying "wow it could X, Y or Z" with no basis for saying that and no justification for it.

Perhaps you should learn a little more basic science before trying to come up with your own ideas. Otherwise you will not be able to formalise you ideas and test whether or not they work. It is largely irrelevant at the quark level. And there is (as far as is known) no "sub-quark" level.

I would assume the points were for so clearly pointing out your fallacy.

It is, obviously, infinitely improbable.

OK. Metres, pound or seconds (but not unicorns) are just ways of measuring things. Not things in themselves. That seems reasonable. Can you clarify this? We can obviously measure time and distance so they are real and observable in that sense. What is your objection to the reality or observability time and distance?

Is not being a fan of football central to what makes me an afootballist? It seems unlikely as I can go months or years without thinking about football.

Also, these objects have high velocities. Unless that velocity is directed directly at the centre of the Earth (not likely for the meteors, impossible for the space shuttle) then they will fall at an angle. If something, say a whale or a bowl of petunias, were to suddenly materialise at rest in the upper atmosphere, then it would fall straight down.

That is a slightly garbled version of history. People did originally assume that the universe was eternal. From this Newton proved that it would have to be infinite (otherwise it would collapse). But Wilhelm Olber's pointed out a problem with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox). After Einstein published the general theory of relativity he added a constant to keep the universe stable. Lemaitre et al. showed that there was a solution where the universe would expand and the consequences of this were worked out. Later Hubble noticed the correlation of red-shift and distance. Various attempts to explain this were tried, including the expanding universe. Not everyone was convinced. Later the cosmic microwave background was detected and this killed the previous steady-state models. Later still, it was noticed that the expansion started accelerating at some point and so dark energy was hypothesized. Indeed. Science relies on evidence. Occam's razor is useful in the case of a model like Lorentz aether theory, which is indistinguishable from special relativity but with the addition of aether (which is undetectable and doesn't do anything). In this case we can use Occam's razor to dismiss Lorentz aether theory because it introduces "unnecessary entities".

That doesn't explain why it behaves differently in the solar system, for example, that it does on the scale of galaxy clusters. How would dark matter particles "push" the Earth if they do not interact with electromagnetism (which is how things normally push). How does this explain gravitational lensing? Anyway, push gravity has been shown not to work a long time ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation How would this explain electromagnetism? Can you derive Maxwell's equations based on this?

I fail to see how introducing something totally undetectable which produces results indistinguishable from existing theory is an improvement. This is known as "magic" in my book, not science. It is like Lorentz Aether Theory: indistinguishable from special relativity except it includes unnecessary Magic Aether.

What if ... you could provide some evidence or maths to support these ideas ...