Strange

That was a really appealing idea. Unfortunately, it doesn't work: the results it predicts don't match reality. There are a lot of symmetries in particle physics so perhaps it isn't surprising that a model based on very complex symmetries would encompass a good proportion of them.

My initial guess, with no context, was that they might be part of one of those (so called) IQ tests - you know, find the next pattern. Then I though they could be patterns from Conway's Game of Life. But the diagonal squares ruled that out. With the context now available, I assume they are meaningless.

I think you have provided The Clue to unlock The Mysteries of The Ancients ... I'm Not Playing this Game (INPG)

I promise to reply, if you post your calculations. I can't promise to provide a "valid assessment" without knowing what you are going to post. I don't believe such people are deserving of ridicule. On the other, hand I will patiently explain to them that, without mathematics, they are not doing science. It might be imaginative, it might be philosophy, it might be interesting ... but it ain't science. Anyway, show us how you calculate the value for the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth and we can discuss it.

What is that supposed to mean? (I assume you mean "consciousness"?) I see no reason to assume that is true. How do you figure that out? Why would a god behave as you hope?

Show us your calculations and I'll take a look.

Why do you think that is relevant?

It lowers the freezing point. Which means that, on a pavement, it is no longer cold enough for ice to remain as ice. But in an insulated environment the ice will turn to water at a lower temperature. So the ice/water mixture will have a lower temperature. (When the ice melts, it absorbs heat from the surroundings.) Weird, huh?

I would say incomprehensible, rather than just incorrect. Light always travels in straight lines.

My understanding is that neutrinos cannot be the main component of dark matter. Models of the formation of large scale structures require mainly "cold" dark matter (i.e. with relatively low velocities). But neutrinos are "hot" (having velocities near the speed of light). However, there is a hypothetical "sterile neutrino" which is one possible dark matter candidate. But, so far, there is no definite evidence that sterile neutrinos exist.

This one: Light always travels at c.

You are not asking questions. You are making a series of not just incorrect but nonsensical statements. That is not a sentence. And light cannot have zero velocity. The one question you ask is answered by the source you quote: no.

OK. That's it. Bye.

Maybe we think they are that shape from watching them run down windows...

I would say a wart is a perfect analogy to a mountain. It is a slight distortion of the surface material. Of course, to scale a wart is much, much larger than a mountain. And I suppose that makes a spot equivalent to a volcano Of course there does. That is what "reproduce" means. That is why a wart isn't reproduction but a baby is.

So you think a mountain is spherical, with a liquid iron core generating a magnetic field and a solid inner core, covered in oceans and landmasses where plate tectonics occurs? Or perhaps you can clarify in what whay you think they are the same, because I just don't see it. And do these baby Earths ever leave their mother and become independent organisms in their own right? And how would you compare your idea with the Gaia hypothesis?

You have come up with your own definition of "living" that doesn't appear to have much in common with mainstream definitions. Admittedly, it is a hard thing to define. You have also redefined "reproduce" to mean change shape slightly.

Me too. Again? Anyway, it is up to you to provide support for your theory. But, a mountain is a part of the Earth. It is not a planet. It is just a case of moving the material around. Would you consider a wart to be a form of human reproduction?

Well, if you want to know about the "birds and bees", maybe you should ask in the Biology forum There are many different reproductive mechanisms for both single-cell and multicellular lifeforms. The key point of all of them is that you end up with a copy (reproduction) of the original organism. That is not the case for the Earth. So your idea is dead in the water.

Reproduction is the process of creating a copy of the original organism. I don't see any little baby Earth's orbiting the Sun. Anyway, how would you say this is different from Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis?

So you make up your own definition of "reproduction" as well. Brilliant.

OK. I skimmed your article. As I thought, you make up your own definition of "living" that matches the Earth and then show the Earth matches your definition. Very good. You fail on some of the basic functions that are normally included in the definition of life, such as reproduction. Anyway, how would you say this is different from Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis?

If you don't want to discuss it, why are you posting on a discussion forum?

I suppose if you define "living" and "organism" appropriately ... Is this any different from Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis? That is not a theory. Fairy tale, maybe.

You have completely ignored the point as to whether this difference (if it exists) is significant or not. But apart from that if the difference in velocity is known, then it is possible to take it into account in measuring the rest mass.