Strange

It isn't clear that it means anything.

If people want to know more about this: http://www.crick.ac.uk/ So, pretty much the same any other research institute, then. But that should be really valuable. Multidisciplinary research already happens, of course, but more is a good thing. I'm sure they will be just as "constrained" by the scientific method as any other scientists. (Which is, of course, a Good Thing.)

There is no evidence for that. And the rest of your post also seems to be wild speculation with no basis in science.

Does that imply there is a lack of modern research supporting your claims? Just a minority of papers from 10 years ago? (And didn't you just criticise someone else in another thread for using "10 year old data"?) It explicitly says it uses a simpler model (and tries to justify that). I assume by that you mean that it agrees with your preconceptions?

Could you be more specific. The USGS website was the first place I checked but I couldn't easily find the sort of statistics you are quoting. If there really were an effect, I would have expected it to be mentioned in scientific articles. Again, I can't find anything. Have you found any work described this "anomaly"; or do you think you have spotted something (rather obvious) that has somehow been missed by thousands of professionals? I would be fairly certain that (a) the Sun has negligible effect on the core and (b) the core has no significant effect on earthquakes.

I did what you requested by taking your claims seriously and analysing the consequences. The only reason this comes across as an "attack" is that it clearly shows that your idea is wrong. It is sad that you are unwilling to consider that possibility. None of my questions have been irrelevant. They have been very carefully thought about and precisely worded to try and extract specific information from you. (Which is normally very hard because of your rambling style with important information buried in a wall of words.) I do not understand why you think anyone will take you seriously when you make statements like this. Force is not energy. I never said that. I explicitly explained how force relates to energy. But you chose to ignore that and keep referring to force as energy. I keep trying to explain to YOU what the difference between force and energy is. You keep equating force and energy. I did NOT ignore it. I used this as the basis of a proposed test to determine whether your theory is more or less accurate than existing theory. Do you remember? It was only a couple of posts ago. Once again: a newton is NOT a measure of energy. But, no, I am not aware of any such anomaly. Can you provide a reference to a description of it? Huh? I didn't mention quarks at. Did I? If so, can you say which post. No they aren't. But even if they were, they are not a quantum of mass as other particles masses are not integer multiples of the electron mass. Therefore it is not the "unit of mass". I never mentioned virtual particles either. I suppose it is a good thing I didn't do it then. You have totally failed to address the fact that the predictions made by your theory are contradicted by experiment. Instead, you launch into an incoherent attack, full of straw man arguments and repeated errors, instead of a clear and rational defence of your theory. Goodbye.

Can you provide a source for this data? And what do you mean by "major"? And over how many years is this taken? And summer where? You might be interested in this: http://www.livescience.com/4800-reason-earthquake-season-revealed.html

OK.

But in real science, people back up their ideas with evidence. You made a series of statements about your beliefs and then said that you were not going to provide any support. Or at least, your support appears to be a single paper using a simplified model. Sounds a little bit like cherry picking.

Can you clarify what you do mean, then? The above two statements appear to be contradictory.

Yes. OK. We can ignore your opinions as unsubstantiated, then. Thanks.

All science is about trying to break existing theories, producing new hypotheses and testing them against the evidence. Evolutionary theory has already changed a lot since Darwin's day and will continue to do so. And they are working on the very topics that the "yes" group say are important. It seems more to be an argument about naming: as the theory evolves, should it still be called the "modern synthesis" or "extended evolutionary synthesis". I couldn't care less.

But as soon as you connect it to a generator to extract energy it will grind to a halt immediately.

Except it isn't. Well, living organisms produce heat either deliberately (for example, warm blooded animals) or simply as a "waste product" of their metabolism. But that is just converting one form of energy (chemical energy) into another.

OK. I can't access the paper, but superficially I see no reason why it shouldn't be credible. There is a vast amount of existing data on the effects of temperature on mortality rates. And, although it is not a good thing, it seems extravagant to describe those figures as "mass deaths"; most diseases have higher death rates.

Not really. In many (most?) cases we can see what the factor(s) determining success are; i.e. what is being selected for or against. And, of course, in laboratory studies the selection can be controlled. So I fail to see any evidence for the "weakness" you claim.

I'm still not sure what you mean by this. Do you really mean the creation of energy (from nothing)? In which case you are proposing the impossible. Or do you just mean the conversion of matter or energy into another form of energy? If so, what energy are you talking about? Are you suggesting that life itself, is some sort of energy? A form of vitalism?

I'm not sure quite what you are asking. But note that in Europe, the usage of dot and comma are reversed. So where the US and UK would write $1,234.98 (or 1,234.98 USD) for one thousand two hundred and 34 dollars ninety eight, most European countries would write $1.234,98 (or 1.234,98 USD).

True. Without gravity, the universe would be a near vacuum containing about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium (and a tiny amount of lithium) at a temperature of 3 kelvin. Not a great place for life. So maybe gravity is essential after all...

While it seems likely that life will always require matter and energy, the need for gravity is less obvious. Other than providing the mechanism whereby matter gets concentrated into useful lumps such as planets, I suppose.

More like a multidimensional, tree/graph-structured, interactive, multi-user whiteboard. I like the idea of being able to unfold/reveal various different explorations/derivations/discussions. As these derivations and discussions might go off in multiple directions, maybe some sort of collaborative "mind mapping" tools is what is needed? Or, at least, you could use some of the concepts as a starting point and then add the math capability on top.

Is this similar to the concept known as a "forum" http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/38-mathematics/ Someone should create one of those ... Actually, Googling for "mathpedia" brings up quite a few results.

At least this I can wholeheartedly agree with over and over again. While I agree that this is true, I fail to see the relevance. JKemp seemed to be suggesting that because there is so much we don't yet know, this somehow throws doubt on what we do know. But that doesn't follow. It assumes that when we explore more of the universe, do more experiments, make more observations, gather more data, etc. that this will inevitably overthrow what we currently know. But it might not. It might just confirm and strengthen our current theories. Also, while we might be a tiny insignificant speck in the universe, it is also possible (*) that we are the only intelligent life. Which would make us both insignificant and significant! (*) I don't want to get into an argument about how likely or not that is. There is no data either way. You still haven't explained the relevance of this to the "life/energy" question.

Can you post a reference to a peer reviewed article that says that "a 2 degree rise in temperature will cause mass death in Britain". Or is this a strawman argument? Why do you think peer review would make it sacred? Do you think that peer reviewed articles are never wrong? What gave you that idea? Citation needed. Citation needed. Citation needed. (Sorry, I'm just a bit sceptical.)

Yes.