Strange

Alternatively, you could read Leviticus and decide to take vengeance against the person who has offended you. That is the nice thing about religion, you can use it to justify absolutely anything: war or peace; revenge or forgiveness; eating or not eating certain foods ...

r is the distance between the (centre of) the two bodies. The position of the barycentre, on the line joining the two centres, is proportional to the two masses.

Video: If the Moon were replaced with some of our planets

Maybe there is a book for people with autism, to help them "fake" neurotypical behaviour. Or watch lots of episodes of The Big Bang Theory.

Huh? Isn't that the obvious way to calculate orbital velocity? For a circular orbit, we have [math]f = \frac{m v^2}{r}[/math] But, from Newton we have: [math]f = G \frac{m M}{r^2}[/math] So [math]\frac{m v^2}{r} = G \frac{m M}{r^2}[/math] and therefore [math]v = \sqrt{ \frac{G M}r}[/math]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy As you are challenging accepted science, I think it is up to you to provide evidence that there are no stars in the arms and that they rotate as a solid disk.

Do you mean generating the line equation from the vertices? That only needs to be done once for each triangle, not for each point test, so it barely counts as an overhead. Basically, you represent the triangles as sets of line equations rather than the coordinates of the vertices. (I think this is where barycentric coordinates come in ... but it is about 30 years since I looked at this!)

The fact we can generate and control magentic fields, electric currents, electromagnetic radiation etc. may not be because we "know what it is". It may just be a fundamental difference between the nature of electromagnetism and gravity. When we have a quantum theory of gravity (for example) we may still know that the only way to manipulate gravity is to add more mass (or energy, etc) or use acceleration.

What preprocessing stage? Some very bright people have spent decades on this. But you never know, someone might have a novel insight.

Of course. That is the definition of barycentre. You have had these explained to you several times in (several) other threads. I am baffled that you keep starting new threads just to ask the same questions.

From the article you didn't read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory#Application_to_Saturn.27s_rings Because we can see it.

There is no change in the object's own frame of reference, so it would have no effect on it.

Yep.

Shame you weren't doing inverse square root, you could have used this neat trick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root

Natural selection (mainly). Your question is far too general. Plants eveolve the same way as everything else. Are there specific features of plants you are interested in? Or specific evolutionary mechanisms? Things are always evolving. Thay can't stop!

Had to do this all the time when coding 3D graphics. Worst case, in 2D this needs 2 multiplies and 1 add for each edge (it works with any ploygon, not just triangles) and then a comparison for each edge. In 3D it requires 3 multiplies and 2 adds for each edge. I seem to remember that there are optimizations (barycentric coordinates?) which can reduce the operations needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar#Decimal_time The fact we inherited 60 minutes and seconds from Babylonians is almost a good reason to hang on to them. It is almost a tradition.

At that level, we do not know what energy, matter, mass, magnetism, electrons, photons, etc. are. This is philosophy, not science.

Also the muon, tau and W boson have charge (and are not made of electrons).

There is no evidence for this.

Obviously not true. Atoms in a crystal lattice vibrate and move distance less than the size of an atom. Also, atoms can be divided.

The fact that we DO understand gravity, tells us that we cannot hide gravity.

I suppose, in principle, it could compress a small amount of the matter at the centre of the explosion. But my (limited) understanding of the formation of black holes by supernovae is that it is the (gravitational) collapse rather than the explosion that forms the black hole. And that wouldn't happen with a normal explosion.

Of course. But I am not sure why you randomly exclude acceleration, as it is the same thing: it is indistinguishable from gravity. He was asked what it "really" is. That is not a question that science can answer. No. (Usual caveats of "according to our current best theories" etc.) Although, being in free fall does a pretty good job of hiding it. Look at those guys in the space station; it looks like they are in zero gravity. My chair does a pretty good job of that.

If you want to be understood, I would recommend using words with their standard meanings. It is still nonsense. Unless you use the term "chaotic" as a synonym for coordinated. And you use the term "arbitrary" as a synonym for highly optimised by evolution.