Strange

Ah, yes, that makes sense. I was being over-literal. Again.

I don't really know how else to help you visualise it. Maybe it can't be understood "purely intuitively" as you wish to. Imagine the universe were not expanding; it is purely static. Then as we look further away, we would see galaxies closer and closer together (because of perspective). Now, if there were just fewer galaxies in the past, it might look as if the distance ones had the same spacing as the newer ones. Having typed that, I don't really know what it tells us ... Except that all observations have to be interpreted in the light of a model based on all the available data. You can't just take it as it appears. In the first case, we could use a normal perspective transformation to interpret the observations. In the second case, we could add a model of the rate at which galaxies are formed. As it is, we use a model of expanding space (based on theoretical predictions and countless lines of evidence) to interpret what we see. If everything, everywhere is, and always has been, moving apart (at a rate proportional to velocity) it is hard to see how they could not have been closer together previously. Here are a couple more good articles that don't address your question directly but might help: http://www2.astro.psu.edu/users/caryl/a10/lec16_2d.html(mentions that we see tidal distortion of distant galaxies caused by them being closer together - even though they don't look it) http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/webscope/activities/pdfs/galaxiesT.pdf(includes a nice explanation/diagram for why space expands).

You are saying that one effect causes it to rise but a different force takes over and holds it against the ceiling.

I suppose Mik'e example does show that even the extended list response doesn't really help any more than just saying "word salad". People posting their ideas, genuinely think they make sense. They don't think they are misusing terminology, think that unformed speculations genuinely don't need evidential or theoretical support, and so on. The only solution is probably a much more rapid move to close speculation threads that don't (and clearly won't) meet the new standards. (And that seems to be happening already.) This will, inevitably, lead to an increase in threads complaining that "perfectly good" ideas have been shut down by The Man. But ... meh.

There is a "right" type? (Or is this Poe's law in action...)

Right. So when a balloon reaches the ceiling and stays there, it is held in place by a continuous downwash of air. Got it. Thanks. That makes so much sense.

When the travelling twin is stationary or moving at a constant velocity, then what you say is correct. However, for some of the time she is accelerating. At that point the situation is no longer symmetrical because you can tell who accelerated and who didn't. (If you like, velocity is relative, but acceleration is absolute. Until you come to take gravity into account.) And, of course, this has been tested experimentally so there is no point saying, "but what if it didn't work like that?" It does.

Perhaps you can ask them if airplanes fly due to buoyancy, as you claim.

Here are a couple of things with a bit more information (this news seems to have triggered some spectacularly unhelpful science journalism - even by the standards of science journalism). http://www.mrc.ac.uk/news-events/news/world-s-first-artificial-enzymes-created-using-synthetic-biology/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2909387/

As you think that "decades" does not mean the same thing as "decades", I gave up reading at that point.

They are both counted with hon in Japanese (i.e. they are both long and thin).

Why do you think people are defending this idea so vehemently? It isn't just because it sounds fun, or because someone called Einstein suggested it. It is about as certain as anything gets in science, it is so well tested. It also forms the basis of much other science and a lot of technology from the transistors in your computer to the Large Hadron Collider. If you were correct you will have to explain why Maxwell's equations are wrong, come up with an alternative to quantum field theory. You will also have to explain why all the technology based on it continues to work and why we cannot detect the variable speed of light. Of course she can. And we do, regularly. But that doesn't change what is actually measured.

Sorry, but I think that taking that list (from post #5) and providing examples for each item would basically mean reproducing your thread here. People explained all the places where you appeared to "used terminology without understanding what it means", "used terminology contrary to its meaning", "used terms that are not used in this branch of science", "made assertions without providing any support", and so on. What is the point of repeating them here. In addition you failed to provide any evidential support (scientific evidence is objective and quantifiable, not photos of your swimming pool) or theoretical support (in science, a theory is a mathematical description). But you were told all this.

I would refer you to the first 5 items in the list in post #5. But f you try and defend your idea here, it will probably not go down well.

That means that you didn't know what a black body is. (It isn't just a body that is black!) There are two problems with this. Firstly, it isn't clear what you mean by "carrier". Heat can be transferred by conduction, convection or radiation. Only the last of of those involves photons. Secondly, you are misusing the word "temperature". Temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy of atoms in a material. It does not apply to individual particles, and especially not photons. The temperature depends on the velocity of the atoms in the body. No need for any waves. And you would be wrong. Then you need to (a) provide some evidence to support this and (b) show why all known thermodynamics is wrong. It is still nonsense.

Not quite. They are experimenting with different molecular structures to build analogues of DNA and RNA. (Although that is a particularly uninformative article.)

Actually, the video is about what we do know. (Not about what you don't know.)

What is the relevance of that to your claims that photons do not conserve momentum?

I haven't seen any evidence of that. You have made a series of counterfactual statements and provided no answers to reasonable questions. I have seen no evidence of that either.

Basically, yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation

Maybe I should have used "change [of position]" instead of distance....

It was just a hurried and not very accurate/useful rewording (reweirding?) of Eise's sentence. In an attempt to show that any meaningless "time doesn't exist" statements apply equally to the spatial dimensions.

The universe is generally agreed to have 4 dimensions (3 space, 1 time). There are speculative theories that require more, up to 10 or 11 in some cases. I have never heard of a theory requiring infinite dimensions. And I don't see why that would imply a multiverse. And the universe may not be infinite. But apart from that ...

If you click the "View New Content" link, there is the option to "Filter by forum" (bottom of the panel on the left). This lets you select which-sub-fora you want to see updates from. (Not sure if this is available in the mobile view.)

The problem is not that it is pseudo-science (although it may be ) but that your "equation" was just a random collection of meaningless symbols. As far as I am aware, there is no reason to think there is any such connection.