Strange

Really? You can't stand with your hips stationary and turn your shoulders? You can only bend rigidly at the waist? I don't think so.

In fact, the observed structure of galaxies and galaxy clusters is yet more evidence for the big bang theory because they match what is predicted by the model. (I know this whole idea of models matching reality is foreign to you, but it is the basis of science.) Because gravity falls off with an inverse square law. The distances between galaxy clusters are so large they is relatively little gravitational attraction. Overall, it could do. And, until recently it was assumed that it would slow if not stop the rate of expansion. But the latest evidence (another foreign concept) ahows that the rate of expansion is actually increasing. It is everywhere. No. Why would it. In fact, the CMB was the absolute knock-out blow to steady state models. There is no other model that can explain it. That is a rather odd assertion from someone who seems to know pretty much zero about the theory. There have been alternatives. And people still work on other possibilities. But none of them fit all the evidence. It is not just that there are no alternatives, it is that it is a very successful model. But as you have no model at all, I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is. You might be better off asking some basic questions in the cosmology forum. Er, no.

But it would carry on spinning, as it flew apart.

It is not the Doppler effect. But otherwise this is correct. If you have an alternative model, please show (using maths) that it produces results that match observation. This "tired light" idea was one of the first explanations proposed to explain red shift. It doesn't work. The expansion of space only occurs over very large distances (where the distribution of matter is approximately homogeneous). On the scale of galaxy clusters, the galaxies are gravitationally bound and orbiting one another. Therefore there is no expansion. In this case we do see Doppler shifts meaning that some galaxies are blue-shifted (because they are approaching us) and others are red-shifted (because they are moving away from us). Do you have a model that predicts these effects and that can be compared with observation? Or do you just claim that every observation fits your vague idea? In which case your idea is not falsifiable and therefore not science. (Redshift is not caused solely by Doppler shift: this only applies to a few galaxies in our local cluster that are moving away from us. Most redshift is caused by the expansion of space.) On the one hand, there is one model that fits all the evidence. On the other hand, you have no model at all. I think I will stick with the science. Also, how does your model explain the really strong evidence for expanding space such as: - the success of general relativity - the cosmic microwave background - the exact amount of hydrogen and helium in the universe I would prefer that they stuck to explaining science.

No. I mean making statements with no apparent connection to the source material. So, for example, you see an article about an experiment and then: 1. Refuse to provide a link to it so we can know what you are talking about. 2. Claim, for no reason whatsoever, that it contradicts quantum theory. 3. Claim, for no reason at all, that it involves "three charges". What question? No. It is modelled that way and, so far, no experiment has been able to measure its radius. p.s. Please use the QUOTE button. Your style of posting is ugly, lazy and impolite.

Maybe you should just say continuum of space and then we could be done with it.

Some people really shouldn't be allowed to write popular science books. Sometimes it seems that people with Nobel Prizes are the among worst offenders.

Tch! Why do people do that. Pathetic. Anyway, using exactly the same amount of evidence and logic that you used to present your thesis leads to the following refutation: you are wrong.

This is not a science question but one about the meanings of words. I would suggest using a dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drug http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/medicine

This, and variations of it, is a very old idea, long disproved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation People ressurect it every now and again with claims that neutrinos or virtual particles or dark matter or <insert random nonsense> will make it work. For some reason, these people never do the maths to show that it could work. They sometimes claim that the maths, if they did it, would look exactly like relativity therefore they don't have to do it. (But they never do the maths to prove that claim either.)

I don't think that is true. If the intended or desired functionality were that your hair blows free in the wind or that the top of your head gets wet, then I think a hat would subtract from this functionality. This is more difficult. But I would argue that any such hat-substitute would, by taking on the functions of a hat, become a hat-in-fact. Surely you are not worried that someone else might claim ownership of those two sentences?

It does, or should do. Oddly, that is not true of any of your posts in this thread.

The sugar in the plant has been synthesized using sunlight as a source of energy. (Ultimately, that is where the sugars in the seed came from as well.)

And for bending your back when lifting. This sot of injury is largely avoidable.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_bank

When the content is illegal. The definition of "illegal" depends on what country you are in.

Can you explain what data is being forced to fit the equations in that case? All I see is that in the absence of data (for the amount of warm plasma) it is derived from the equations. But maybe I haven't understood the point you are trying to make. It is not clear what you are asking here. Obviously, as the sun or a galaxy radiate energy, they lose mass. Is that what you mean? Also, stars throw of a "wind" of particles as well as energy. This also contributes to the mass loss. Is that what you mean? You mean apart from the change of position of the masses that are attracted to one another? No. This is conservation of (angular) momentum. This applies to a rotating object so as a star or galaxy loses mass it will slow its rotation. Is that what you mean? Or are you talking about an equivalent of the exchange of virtual photons that mediates the electromagnetic force? That would be the hypothetical exchange of virtual (and hypothetical) gravitons. But we don't have a theory of quantum gravity yet, so there isn't much to say about that. (Except they would be massless, with zero charge and spin 2.)

Exactly. Why would that confuse you. It sounds like most of the videos you have seen are made for publicity purposes, often in advance of the mission. There are others. Including, of course, real photos and video clips. From space probes, the Mars rovers and many other missions. The recent Rossetta / Philae landing, for example. Why would you think NASA (who are not responsible for all these missions anyway) would hide things? What would they be hiding?

The trouble is, nothing you have said bears any relationship to the theory of evolution. For example, how do you know if a particular fossil is "fit" or "unfit"? It is a meaningless judgement based, apparently, on a gross misunderstanding of what the phrase "fitness" means. For example: - Did those fossils exist for an extended period? Yes, then they must have fit their environment. - Did those fossils change over time? Yes, then they changed in order to better fit (perhaps because their environment changed). - Did those fossils die out over time? Then maybe they did not fit their (perhaps changing) environemnt. Your argument is about as sensible as saying, "evolution must be wrong because I am wearing red trousers". And your childish attempts to imply that people only "believe" in evolution "because Darwin" is just silly. Darwin and Wallace came up with the initial theory (based on large amounts of evidence). It has been extensively modified since then - again based on the evidence. There was much Darwin and Wallace did not know (the existence of genes, for example) and some things they got wrong. It is only religious nuts who think the whole thing hangs on Darwin's word. Ironic from someone who apparently doesn't know anything about evolution. And isn't interested in learning. So it is a "bad thing" when people support their arguments with references to the evidence? Extraordinary. If you were interested in overcoming the shortcomings in your knowledge, you could take advantage of the knowledge available from the experts here, and the references provided. But you prefer to throw out insults and unsupported, irrelevant and incorrect claims.

Something like "scienceforums.net"?

And, like all your speculations, completely lacking in evidence. I have no idea why you just make up random "stuff". This is a science forum. If you are going to claims that something contradicts quantum theory then the only way you can do this is by using mathematics. Another unreferenced quotation. (OK, I found it in the Phys.org article. Again, it would be helpful if you provided references, rather than assume we are mind readers.) There is nothing sacred about quantum theory? Why would you say that? Note it that was a journalist, not the scientists, who used the word "bizarre". Many aspects of quantum theory are surprising and counterintuitive (and lead to bad journalism). I thought you might have noticed that by now.

These sort of processes may have been part of the "pre-biotic evolution" that eventually led to living organisms. B ut they do not, by themselves, define life. No it doesn't.

Er, no. There are many of species in the fossil record that don't exist any more. And there are many more that have changed over the millennia. Really. That is quite an impressive strawman you have created and decided to attack. Did you come up with it all by yourself? Or did your church spoon-feed it to you?

I don't think so. It is more a matter of looking for better models. Sometimes these are simpler, as in the examples related to planetary motion. But then Einstein came along and, although it could be argued that his conceptual model is simpler (and more unifying) it is far more complex mathematically. The same has happened elsewhere: quantum theory has replaced simple (semi-)classical models such as the Bohr atom; the modern synthesis has replaced/extended the Darwin-Wallace model of evolution; modern genetics has built on the simple rules discovered by Mendel. And on and on...

It is pretty complicated. If you can show that there was a defect when it was manufactured or was not of merchantable quality or not fit for purpose (the source of that terrible political cliche) then the retailer is liable for a "reasonable" amount of time. This could be weeks or months, depending on the type of product. There is a cut off at 6 months when it changes from the retailer having to prove the product was OK, to the customer having to prove it was defective. Most manufacturers provide a 12 month warranty. Some retailers will extend that (for free or for a fee). But that is in addition to any statutory rights you have. In all cases, it is the retailer who is responsible for refunding, replacing or repairing the product. (It is up to them to sort this out with the manufacturer.)