Strange

Interesting question. I'm not aware of any fundamental reason why this should be the case. It could be that your bathroom has stronger resonances at some frequencies (e.g. C) than at others (A). It could be your ears are more sensitive to some notes than others. It could be that your voices is stronger at some frequencies than others. Or ... (In other words, I don't know!)

What needs explaining? Are you under the impression that it takes energy to keep things in orbit?

You still don't know what a reference frame is, I see.

Not surprising. Neither am I. It is a very complex subject. True. There is a lot of shoddy journalism talking about "creation of the universe" but we have no evidence or understanding of what happened before this early hot dense state. That used to be the general view. But now it seems that expansion is accelerating so it may not slow down and collapse again. There is a lot to learn. People here can help. And there is a lot of information online. It was derived theoretically and (because this is science) has been tested experimentally. Well, it is trivial to prove there is inertial mass. Stand next to a large ship floating in the docks and push it. If there were no inertial mass, you would easily make it move.

I didn't tell you the exact equivalent because that was not relevant. The only point I was making was that you can use any equivalent units to express mass with no change in meaning. There is no need of embarrassment; there just needs to be a willingness to learn. The trouble is when people attempt to explain things, you just reject it. So I don't know what you want. You plead you are a "poor layman" (so I am I) who needs to learn. But when people attempt to explain things you get angry and insulting. As always with your threads. OMG = Oh My God - an expression of surprise. Do you really mean you have never heard of things like kg and pounds and other units of mass? The exact value doesn't matter: it is the concept that people are trying to get you to understand: it doesn't matter what unit of mass is used; it is still just mass. The units are chosen for convenience: eV/c2 in particle physics, solar masses in astronomy, kg in everyday life. The units are just chosen because they give numbers that are easy to manage - the choice does not change the meaning. That is all we are trying to explain to you. Because you appear not to know these common things.

I'm not sure this can be ruled out. I don't know. I have always assumed that if you believe in god then you believe in god (and if you don't then you don't). Rational arguments against the existence of god only make sense to those who, already, don't believe. Is it possible to make a conscious decision to stop believing? I don't know. I don't see that there has to be any conflict between science and belief in god(s). Many past and present scientists were/are religious. The problem only arises if one thinks that a particular interpretation of a holy book trumps reality. Science says that reality always wins (which is why scientific theories are always conditional and subject to change).

There are no "proven facts" in science. Just theories support by a lot of evidence. There is a mountain of evidence for the predictions of special and general relativity; far too much to go into here, or even list (a few examples have been mentioned). That is what science does: tests ideas. IF you think you have a theory (more accurately, hypothesis) then you need to show that (a) it makes predictions (b) those predictions are confirmed by evidence and © ideally, show that it makes better predictions than existing theory. Just saying "time dilation is ludicrous" is not science. Gosh, that's original. But I don't understand this criticism. is it that you haven't bothered to learn anything so no one else should either? Can you define what you mean by "logic"? If you mean making stuff up (like "time dilation is ludicrous", even though we use it in technology every day) then we don't need that sort of logic.

Frozen?

1. That is not what theory means in science. A theory is an explanation that is able to provide quantitative, testable predictions and that has beed repeatedly tested against the evidence. 2. Light is not "launched" and its speed is not determined by its energy. It always travels at the same speed (the energy corresponds to its frequency). 3. This is the problem with deriving results using "logic" when you don't know the basics. You get the wrong answers. That is a speed, not an acceleration. Except that this prediction of the theory has been tested and found to be correct. (That is how science works.) And this prediction of the theory has been tested as well. As a practical example, you might have heard of GPS? Here's the thing, science doesn't just make things up. It tests each idea to make sure it works before it is accepted as a theory. Which is why you don't have a theory: your predictions are contradicted by evidence.

What are you talking about. I am not saying anything about mass or gravity being secondary, I am not saying anything about energy. I am not saying anything about "quantum". I am just showing that you can express mass in any appropriate units, with no change in meaning. It is just blindingly obvious to anyone with a basic education. Physics didn't change because people stopped using feet and pounds and moved to centimetres and grams (CGS). And then it didn't change again when they moved to metres and kilograms (MKS). You could express my weight or mass that way as well. Or pounds. Or stones. Or fothers. Or tons. Or grams. Or fotmals. Or hundredweight. Or Troy ounces. Or grains. Or sacks. Or slugs. Or ... It doesn't change the meaning.

You will soon learn to ignore 99% of fiveworld's posts.

As long as you are not going to get upset when people point out that: 1. Your "theory" is not a theory. 2. You have misunderstood some basic physics. 3. Your conclusions are not supported by any evidence or theory. Of course, I might be wrong. You might not be just like all the others who post their ideas on science forums. So let's see...

That isn't what you said. If you has said that, I imagine the general response would have been: "well, duh." Obvious and not very interesting. If the extent is unknown how can you say that "most things" remain unknown? Also, the domain of applicability of most theories is pretty well understood. So, even if there is an unknown amount of stuff we don't know about, that doesn't invalidate the theories we do have. Your argument sounds like the usual childish, "if we don't know everything, then we don't know anything". You don't have any basis for that, do you.

The universe was hot and dense. Then it got less dense and cooled. Initially it was so dense that photons couldn't travel any distance without being absorbed by electrons. Eventually it cooled and expanded enough that photons were free to travel (that is the CMB). It continued to expand and cool. Then clouds of gas started to collapse under their own weight and formed stars and galaxies. In a nutshell.

This drivel is about problems with technology and human failings. (They are also anecdotes you have made up, as far I can tell.) They have nothing to do with mathematics. And you can't say "thousands of people" if you are not able to apply mathematics to the real world. (And no doubt, according to you, "there are no people" or some such rot.) Oh, so you can apply mathematics to the real world after all. (Although I suspect, again, that you made up that number.) You might do. After all, it is impossible to use maths in the real world so you have no idea if your $1000 will be enough to get you a (whatever it is they sell at "McDounall's"). And of course, you wouldn't know that you had $1,000 because it is impossible to use maths.

Nothing. This was just one of the misleading and meaningless statements made by heartmath. Money. This is quite a good, non-technical description: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/brain-cells-in-the-heart/ Yes. As already noted, the gut plus many other parts of the body. They have nothing to do with "thinking" though.

I wouldn't say it is false. It is correct within its domain of application. The same is true of any scientific theory. There are very few theories that have been shown to be completely wrong. That isn't at all what it says.

If you are not prepared to do the necessary work then yes, you are wasting our time.

You need to sum all the relevant forces to show that.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html Yes. It is consistent with all the evidence and is, therefore, the best theory we currently have (which is the nearest you can get to "right" in science). You want a life-size representation of the entire universe? Look around you!

You need to sum all the relevant forces to show that.

Probably. But it is more likely that the two models overlap and we will choose to use the simpler one when it is good enough. For example, Newton's theory of gravity is very often accurate enough and way simpler than GR. And there are many classical (deterministic) approximations that can be used in place of full quantum formalizations (e.g. Maxwell's equations instead of QED).

Ha. I remember when this was the only type of computer graphics display. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_monitor

Or, at least, you believe it does. But as you seem to understand approximately zero about the topics you talk about, I don't find that particularly surprising or interesting.

A very cool video showing the scale of the solar system