Strange

Without numbers attached, you are still relying on the same, tired old argument from incredulity: "it is amazing I can see light from distant stars, therefore it must be important". You seem to be using "significant" to mean having a noticeable effect; i.e. you can see it. It is still an insignificant proportion of the mass of the galaxy (which was the subject of discussion) and playing silly word games won't change that. If you want to claim that the energy released by stars is significant in this sense (i.e. has some relevance to the subject you are discussing) then please demonstrate it. It just requires a little basic arithmetic. (I am not going to do it for you because I don't think you will learn anything from that.) If you are too lazy to support your own argument then I don't see why anyone else should take it seriously, either

As I say, work it out for yourself, and then show us that the energy lost by electromagnetic radiation is significant (i.e. larger than the errors). There is no point having the "but it seems significant to me" argument all over again. If you can't be bothered to work it out, then you have NO RIGHT to claim it is significant.

Do the math. You will get a number very close to zero. It will certainly be many orders of magnitude smaller than the errors in estimating the mass of the galaxy. (Once again, we are back to you saying "I think this is significant" when a back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that it is obviously not. You need to work some of these things out so that your "gut feel" becomes more relaistic.)

This has changed because there is new evidence. You would probably need to do a degree in cosmology, or at least study the appropriate material, much of which is available online, in order to be able to answer that for yourself. Actually, the models are changed to fit the data. The other way round would be pseudoscience.

True. It probably depends on the jurisdiction. In the UK it is always the retailer's responsibility (even for manufacturer's warranty - and even if there is no warranty but there is an obvious problem).

They shouldn't do. Dell just sent me a new one in the post. Insist you need the old one so you can recover the data from it.

They should do if it still in warranty. This happened to me several years ago with a Dell laptop. I didn't even know it was still in warranty but when I ordered a replacement disk they said it would be free (and even asked if I needed help installing it and moving the data across). Have you run a disk test (chkdsk /r for Windows, fsck for Linux)? It might be a "soft" fault (corrupted data) but if you really have a large number of bad sectors you need to back up your data as soon as possible and replace the disk. Replace the disk first. Otherwise you risk wasting time and losing other data.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04v59gz

That depends on the frequency distribution of the random number generator. Some might have a Gaussian distribution, which would greatly reduce the probability of extreme values.

It wouldn't make any difference. The mass and energy of those cosmic rays would be orders of magnitude less than the errors in the overall figure. We have direct observational data going back to 380,000 years after the big bang. We have indirect evidence and extrapolations based on well understood physics, going back nearly 380,000 years before that. I was going to give the apparent homogeneity of the universe as an example in response to your initial question. The reason for the inflation hypothesis in the big bang model is to explain this uniformity because it seems to have required the entire (observable) universe to have been small enough to have been a single uniform entity. (There seems to be another thread on this "horizon" problem.) True. But they could also have turned into chocolate elephants and started dancing a jig. With no evidence to support either suggestion nor any mechanism by which it could happen, there seems little reason to consider it. e = mc2. But it doesn't make any difference. Apart from the fact that the amounts of energy you are talking about are tiny, they are also still in the galaxy so it makes no difference to the total. A) there is no evidence for this cycle so why would we consider it? B) It wouldn't make any difference to the total mass-energy (and therefore gravitational effect) of the galaxy. You just seem to be making up random stuff in the hope it might show current science to be wrong. But the actual evidence is more important.

As they state (I don't know why you say "boast") that the experiment is in agreement with quantum theory, what reason do you have do saying that it contradicts quantum theory? Perhaps you can show the maths that led you to this conclusion? There is no need for three charges. A single moving charge is enough to generate a magnetic moment. As it seems that you invented this "controversy", why would you you expect there to be any echo of it? As you have just made up the idea of "three charges" for no reason at all, there appears to be no justification for such a rule.

Not in science. There is no theory that is considered "right" if the evidence contradicts it. It was a prediction of general relativity. Every other explanation that has been tried so far does not fit all the rest of the evidence. No. they were wrong because the evidence did not fit their hypotheses. From this, and some of your other posts, it seems you really need to learn a little bit about how science works. Studying the history of science, and how various theories came to be accepted, would be a good start.

There is no evidence currently that either is wrong. Any future theory will have to produce the same results, so it is hard to know in what sense they could be "wrong". Yes, in that sense.

But, as Galileo established several hundred years ago, all movement is relative. There is no way that you can tell if you are moving at a constant velocity or stationary, except by reference to some other object. You can choose to say they other object is stationary and you are moving relative to it; or that you are stationary and the other object is moving. It makes no difference. But you can always feel acceleration. (And you can see it, obviously.)

As this is a science forum, I think you will find the rules require evidence, even in the "Speculations" forum. Not just baseless ruminations. I suggest you ask questions like that in the appropriate part of the forum. But it seems a bit odd to attack these hypotheses if you don't even know what the supporting evidence is. Of course they are not "fact". We are talking about science here. And thge evidence will be what determines who is right, not what anyone believes. There is a difference between being open minded to new evidence and just making stuff up. You might as well say that all the stars we see are insible pink flying unicorns with light coming out of their horns. As we have a very good theory that already explains that, you need to start by showing in suitable mathematical detail how your theory provides a better explanation than the current theory. Can you do that?

All that seems to amount to "maybe there is nothing, maybe there isn't". That isn't science; it is barely philosophy. If you have no evidence for your "continuum of matter" then it just pointless speculation. I can't understand why so many people have this bizarre idea. The only reason that the ideas of dark matter and dark energy exist is because of the evidence, not just because of "formulas and equations".

The observable universe is about 90 billion light years in diameter. The whole universe is vastly bigger, if not infinite. Nope. Until you have some evidence that the theory is wrong, we have to assume that it is correct (based on all the evidence we have so far).

What are we observing, if it doesn't exist until we, as human beings, make it? Surely, if we can make matter then we can make empty space. If there is no empty space, then what exists between the widely separated atoms in intergalactic space?

Because this is the Speculations forum and you are required by the rules to provide evidence. Yes. You have said that before. (Shall I start counting how many times you repost exactly the same thing?) Now, about the evidence ...

You can consider the Earth stationary. Or you can consider the other as stationary and the Earth moving. It is symmetrical. It is the theory of relativity.

Please provide some evidence to support his.

You need to provide evidence that: a) There is any such aether and b) that it waves But I have seen you posting the same thing under many other usernames so I assume you are just going to endlessly repeat the same thing over and over, without providing any support .... Go!

Yes. Speed is measured relative to something else. Therefore either can consider themselves stationary and the other moving. Therefore they will both determine the same relative speed.

Other experiments, e.g. Fizeau, disprove the hypothesis that th aether is dragged by matter. There is no evidence of massive aether.

From the paper: "First is the existence of an accompanying system, in interac tion with the isolated electron. We can denote it æther or vacuum. Of course , not the classical æther associated to an absolute rest frame." So they are using the word "aether", as many people do, as a general metaphor. It has been used in this sense to describe: the electromagnetic field, space-time, quantum vacuum, and many other things. The term has effectively become quite meanignless. The paper appears to be be presenting something similar to the pilot-wave interpretation (but I have only skimmed it really quicky).