Strange

You say that but provide no examples or any other reason to take the idea seriously.

No. I would say there are three categories: Deterministic systems that are simple enough to be predictable. Deterministic systems that are so complex and/or chaotic that they are not predictable (except in terms of probabilities). Random systems that are not predictable (except in terms of probabilities). We know all three types of systems exist. Although the first probably only exists as simplified idealizations.

I didn't say that. I sadi that for non-deterministic systems (i.e. those that are truly random) the only thing we can calculate are probabilities.

You shouldn't be upset: you should be pleased that people are interested enough to examine your ideas, to test them and to encourage you to think about them more deeply.

Then maybe you should take some mathematics; infinity is very well defined and the mathematics around infinities produces some amazing and surprising results.

You obviously aren't aware of the Twin Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox Nope.

Oh no, not the "time is motion/change" argument again. I can't stand it! Can't someone start a special forum for peoiple who don't believe in time ...

The thing you need to understand is that the only reason the current big bang model is so widely accepted is because it is able to make predictions which very closely match observations. Without predictions (mathematical, quantitative predictions) that can be tested, you don't have a theory; all you have a is an imaginative idea. Unless you can come up with some way to test it and show it is better than current theories.

Why do you think it is likely? Specifcally, what evidence is there for a "double universe"?

Unless you have some evidence that time is absolute (and you don't) then it is a religious belief, not science.

Interesting point. I'm not sure how much you can model without understanding it. But, as I say, it is being worked on. I believe there is even an open source project to develop a model of an entire organism. Yep, here it is: http://www.openworm.org/science.html So get involved!

Do superconductors absorb energy?

OK. Here are a few of the most obvious ways you are wrong: Does 9x = 9 ? No: 9 * .999 = 8.991 1. So that is one place you are wrong. (Maybe you need to buy a new calculator.) 2. And that is another place you are wrong. New calculator or a few basic lessons in arithmetic (which is not the same as mathematics). 3. This is not a theory: a theory needs to be supported by evidence. 4. This is nothing to do with mathematics. 5. There is a logical flaw in your reasoning ("begging the question"). But you should start a new thread if you want to discuss that. 6. Infinity is very well defined in mathematics. 7. This is nothing to do with mathematics. 8. The value of pi has not changed. 9. It is not based on theories (because a theory needs to be supported by evidence confirming its testable predictions). It appears to be based on a small number of incorrect and/or irrelevant ideas. So, there you go: 9 reasons you are wrong. You might want to round that up to 10, based on your grasp of arithmetic.

You would need more than just a "scan" of the body; you would need to be able to simulate all of the biochemical interactions (genes, proteins, etc) that take place in every cell and all the interactions between them. This is a massive job both in understanding everything that goes on in a cell and then the computing power that is needed to model it. But there are projects under way to tackle this.

I believe in Santa Clause whether it is possible to see him or not!

Agreed. There was a poet who complained that people who explained a rainbow had ruined it for him. I think that is a very shallow attitude: the more you understand about rainbows, flowers, bees, women ... the more layers there are to wonder at. And, of course, science starts with wonder and with observation. The important (vital) point though, is that it doesn't stop there...

Fascinating. Looks like a soap bubble in a tornado! In an argument about the costs of the LHC, one of my arguments for constructing it was just a stunning photograph of one of the detectors - definitely more art than science Any technology that can produce something so spectacular has to be worth pursuing!

More like a hollow unicorn turd. And about as realistic.

That is multiply, not add. (I worry about you, some days.)

It is not deterministic; it is random; it cannot be predicted, even in principle.

Does that mean you are deliberately posting nonsense just for the sake of it?

No. The one that has support of facts is considered more likely to be correct than the one that has no support (and is contradicted by facts). I think "rational" would be more appropriate than "elite".

Mongols or Arabs, probably. What is your point? But you haven't shown any link between race, "might" and intelligence so it is irrelevant.

Er, no: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=\pi^0

That is true. They are chaotic, which means that even though they behave deterministically they are unpredictable. So all you can do is predict probabilities. Quantum theory is inherently random, probabilistic and (sometimes) acausal. Even though it can be described (very accurately) by mathematics.