Strange

You are not the first, and sadly not the last, to consider such things and attempt to test it. All experiments that have been done show no evidence for such magical forces. Although it is true that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", the negative results of so many different attempt to discern any such msyterious force leads one to conclude that there is no such thing. I don't know if the Randi prize is still going, but if you really believe this stuff, you could try and win $1M.

So, next you have to eliminate thermal effect, vibration, static electricity, ... There are a great many real effects that could case this before you can even consider invoking something that doesn't exist.

I'm not sure it is (or ever will be) possible to prove it either way. If the universe is infinite, then it is an example that proves that infinity exists. Butt if it isn't, then it might prove that there is nothing infinite. If space is continuous then it can be infinitely subdivided. But if it isn't ... Quantum effects appear to be random (for example, it is impossible to say which radium atom will decay next). But it might be that there is an underlying theory that will show them not to be.

What did you do to eliminate the possibility of air movement, for example. Are there any witnesses to these feats? Did you do a controlled, blind study where the person observing the objects was not aware of what you were trying to do? Did you use an objective measurement of the light (a light meter, for example)? Did you ensure you separated the measurement from knowledge of the emotions you were projecting (i.e. a double blind study)? Yep. That is infinitely more likely. As for your videos, I have just three words: Penn and Teller.

And yet dark matter seems to behave exactly as you would expect from the rules of this universe. We already observe it. But how, in practical terms, do you go about "not existing in this reality"? Suicide? Not true. You are just making up random nonsense.

What do you mean by the "classical" formula? If you mean Newton's formula then, yes it gives the wrong result. General Relativity gives the right result (this was one of the first tests of GR).

It depends what calculations you are referring to. If you were to use General Relativity to calculate both, then you would get the right answer for both. However, in the case of a comet, you could get an accurate enough result by using Newton's law of gravity. But if you use this for light, you get a result that is half the correct value. The changing energy of the light is seen in changing frequency rather than speed.

Maths? Testable predictions? Evidence?

Sorry, there appears to be no science in any of your posts.

You still need to use 4 dimensions, even if it is encoded in binary. You seem to be saying that there are only two words in the English language because the entire works of Shakespeare can be encoded as 0s and 1s. Obvuously not true.

Attract is a verb (to attract). I don't see how that verb can be equal to a force. Unless force is also a verb. "To attract is to make someone do something"? If you mean "attraction", then I'm still not sure what you are saying: "force is equal to attraction" What force? And what attraction?

What does that mean? What is "attract"? The others are equally incomprehensible.

The correct formula is [latex]\displaystyle F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} [/latex] What is the source of the pressure, P? Have you worked out how much force will be applied to the Earth by the Sun's magnetic field? And the direction of that force?

Thanks for that. The "royalty free ... and nonexclusive ... be issued to all applicants ..." bit is consistent with my guess as to the reason they are filing a patent.

This is not true. To arrange to meet someone you need to specify 3 spatial dimension (e.g. latitude, longitude and altitude) and 1 temporal dimension (the time). These are not dimensions (either). Earlier you said that the 5 sense were dimensions. Apart from the fact they are not dimensions, there were 5 of them. Now there are two. Which is it? So the entire universe consists of "yes". Not very convincing. Please describe an objective test of this hypothesis. Magic.

Yes. When I was at school we were not allowed to leave exams before the full three hours were up. I would spend the time sitting there trying to see how low and then I could get my heart rate to go just by thinking about it. It was many decades go but I think I got it down to about 60 and then back up to 80.

If "cause" does not mean the same as "cause" in "cause and effect", then perhaps you need to define what the word does mean to you. Why do people latch on to the Higgs boson as if it were some magical answer to life the universe and everything. Why not the photon or the gluon? Apart from the stupid nickname, the Higgs mechanism has nothing to do with God. (Unless, of course, you believe that God created it along with everything else.) There is no such "law" or definition. You are free to present your definition of God or god and discuss it. Again, what censorship. I am curious, so you can explain here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85789-dns-filtering-and-censorship/

welcome.gpf is not a valid domain name, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say. And can you give an example of where "we" (who is "we"?) are heavily censored?

Also, can you define what you mean by "chaos"?

You didn't point out any mistakes. There are some minor errors, but nothing that gets in the way of understanding the message.

I have worked on technology patents but have never quite understood how biotech patents work. However, my understanding is that only the application or use of a genetic sequence is patentable. On that basis, I would expect the first 20 or so claims to be rejected. (But I may be wrong.) After that it is about producing a vaccine against the virus, which is definitely patentable. The US Government may be patenting it in order to make sure it is freely available (rather than those Pesky Drug Companies making excessive profits from the crisis). But I have no idea. I actually had a vague idea that the US government was not allowed to own patents or any other IP. I guess I was wrong.

Here is an animation of the thought experiment, which may help:

Dr Rocket didn't provide any definitions of god, he just pointed out the problems that there is no definition. I don't understand how you think this relates to science. Science deals with things that are well defined and objectively measurable. Almost the exact opposite of god. There is no point to a section for religion on a science forum. I don't know why it is here. Dark matter isn't beyond science. We only know about it because of science. What censorship?

What is the IBH model?

1. It doesn't make any difference: the electrons have the same mass as the energy of the photons they were formed from. 2. Electrons interact with light; dark matter doesn't.