Strange

Yes, exactly. The different velocity for each frequency causes each colour to be refracted at a slightly different and so they get split up.

I don't really understand the question. Hypnosis is obviously a real thing. Do you mean, has it been studied scientifically? Google Scholar lists about 200,000 results so I assume the answer is yes. http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=hypnosis

What evidence do you have for the creation of the universe. What is "phantom matter"? What evidence do you have for the existence of phantom matter? What are "permanent elements"? What evidence do you have for the existence of permanent elements? What evidence do you have for this? Well, you get the idea...

That BBC report is largely incomprehensible! The paper is here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/01/21/science.aaa3035(for those who have access) I haven't been able to find a better summary.

This has as much connection with any of those subjects as numerology has with mathematics. (I'm guessing you rely on numerology as well.) Nice cherry-picking. Here is a small selection that don't fit your preconceived ideas (but I am sure you will either find some way to make them fit, or explain why they not relevant).

The event horizon is created at the center of the collapsing supernova and expands outward (at, or close to, the speed of light) to encompass more mass within the growing Schwarzschild radius. I'm curious; do you think that all the cosmologists and physicists who study these things are going to go, "Doh! Why didn't we think of that!" when they hear your unique insight? (The only reason I am aware of the many reasons it is wrong is because it has been brought up so many times on science forums and the flaws explained, often by experts in the field.)

The warning appears to often be meaningless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_%281986%29#Warning_label

It is possible but it seems more likely that the universe is just an immensely complex thing. (If it is so easy, why is there only one of them!)

Indeed. I would never have guessed it was a reference to string theory. All that was needed was a link to clarify, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#M-theory Is that really so hard?

As everybody knows what 1+1 is but nobody knows what "the 5 basic string shapes" are (you never did explain), that analogy doesn't really hold water. This attitude that you have some "special knowledge" which you refuse to explain (and which could therefore be something you made up) is what causes a negative reaction. So you only want agreement from people who hold the same views as you. Maybe you should start your own forum and ban anyone who asks you to explain what you are talking about. You don't think it is "uptight" to have a hissy fit when asked to explain what you are talking about?

What did you offer to the discussion by posting such a retort, except a condescending attitude?

Also, the time dilation seen near an existing event horizon doesn't seem relevant to the process of formation of the event horizon in the first place.

Wrong.

Lifetime is the inverse of energy: more energetic virtual particles exist for less time.

Although the species concept can be rather fuzzy and hard to define, there are also cases where no (reasonable) person would disagree that a new species had been created. Many such events have been recorded..

That's an interesting point: as science (inevitably) becomes more complex and requires more mathematics, the public presentation of science has to work harder to explain it in simple terms. Once upon a time, the explanation given to a lay person could be pretty much the same as that used between the natural philosophers themselves. Sadly, that is no longer true.

Citation needed.

But has its own problems. We are obviously going to need a wide range of solutions, some of which will be more or less appropriate in different places. Do you have any data on relative safety? I couldn't find much for solar apart from data from WHO showing "solar (rooftop)" to be between 5 and 10 times more dangerous than nuclear. And this from a paper I can't access:

Singapore was my primary example. Not exactly a "developing country".

Absolutely not. It is the only high capacity alternative we currently have, and is also the safest form of energy generation.

It might be more accurate to say that both think they are stationary and they are. By saying "they are not" you assume there is some definition of who is stationary. I don't see how relativity is relevant to the subject of the thread. Your thought experiment has nothing to do with light speed (it no longer applies at light speed). All electrons are identical and travel at less than light speed. All photons are identical and travel at light speed. So light speed seems totally irrelevant.

Some of it may be cultural. When I worked in Singapore, the development teams were, as near as I could tell, about half male and half female. And when I worked in a UK university, pretty much all of the female science and engineering students were from the Middle East and Asia.

I thought that was totally undeserved. There was nothing particularly controversial in that post; I agreed with much of it. I can't imagine why anyone thought it was worth voting down.

I know it is a waste of time but ... Do you have any evidence to support these claims? (And by "evidence" I mean objective data, not your uninformed opinion, which is what you usually rely on.)

In Europe (I don't know about elsewhere) there is concern that the collapse of bee populations could destroy many of our food crops because they are dependant on bees for fertilization.