Strange

Here:

This appears to be true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Antimatter_confinement) But how is that relevant to dark matter?

That doesn't appear to have anything to do with the structure of the universe. It is about how the human mind/brain works.

Things like your repeated claim that is is impossible to see anything knew. Or that the meanings of Egyptian hieroglyphs are unknown. Or that there is no physical evidence for ramps. Or that there is no word for ramp. Or ... Oh just reread all your threads. You are repeatedly shown to be talking nonsense. Irrelevant (n): A fact that contradicts a dearly held belief.

Fractals are a branch of mathematics. Perhaps you could calculate the fractal dimension of the universe at various scales and confirm your claim. I don;t see anything that would make it possible. It is your claim, the "burden of proof" is on you. It isn't true by default.

So we can add "science" and "evidence" to the words that you have your own personal definition of. Maybe you should publish a bilingual English-Cladkingese dictionary. Evidence (n): A cake made of bananas. Science (n): The house where ghosts live. Scalar question (n): A type of motorised water vehicle. Visceral knowledge (n): The pleasure found in scratching a scab. Egypt (n): A mythical planet inhabited by giant spiders. Alphabet (n): Indecipherable marks on paper. Language (n): A flexible material related to rubber. And so on.

I think you mean, "opinion after opinion" It has been repeatedly demonstrated that many of your opinions are factually incorrect. And yet you keep repeating them.

The brain is very adaptable. Contrary to your repeated claim that it is impossible to see anything new. But this has little or nothing to do with science, which relies on objective evidence.

This is true of any machine powered by an external energy source: it will runs as long as the energy source is there (and the materials do not break down, the bearings wear away, etc.).

So you refuse to answer the question? AGAIN. Pathetic.

No you didn't. Your words are there for everyone to see. And of course, the origins of the symbols are irrelevant. (Although, as it is a pictographic system, the origins are pretty bloody obvious in most cases.) It is not irrelevant because it is concrete proof that your claims are untrue. It is rather sad the way you dismiss all contradictory evidence as irrelevant.

It is an engine driven by solar power (see post 29, for example). (Note that I have no idea how it is supposed to work or whether it would actually work. But you show the Sun as the source of input energy; therefore it is not "perpetual motion" in the accepted meaning of the term.)

That about sums you up.

It isn't just that the cartouche identifies kings; THE NAMES CAN BE READ. So your claim that "So far in 150 years Egyptology has failed to identify any of the symbols" is, once again, shown to be wrong. I see you also ignored the Rosetta stone. Awkward when the evidence shows you are lying, isn't it.

Fair enough. (Although I was still surprised how large the [incorrect] value was. )

A simple approximation using the Hubble constant and the Earth-Moon distance. It may not be accurate...

I was also thinking of the BIG button at the bottom right of EVERY post that says "Quote" in BIG letters. (Look, down there ...) Easy to miss, I guess.

Actually, it isn't that small. I worked it out when this came up on another forum. By a weird coincidence it is about the same as the rate at which the moon is moving away from the Earth due to to tidal forces. So it would be quite easily measurable. Elfmotat appears to know more about this than I do, so draw your own conclusions ...

Radiation is one source of mutations. I'm not sure, but I don't think it is particularly significant; I think transcription errors during cell division are more important. Also, because we have evolved with a certain level of background radiation there are mechanisms to correct these sorts of errors.

As far as I know, that is not so. That was not an optical illusion.

And Faraday really resented it!

It does, doesn't it. This might help: Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil? Matthew J. Francis, Luke A. Barnes, J. Berian James, Geraint F. Lewis http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380

Ah, sorry. Didn't realise that. Had a quick skim. I don't really know enough about the specific application to comment. Seems reasonable, though.

This is very clearly not true. The universe looks very different at different scales. At the largest scale it is roughly homogeneous. At smaller scales there are clusters of galaxies (not homogeneous). At still smaller sacles, there are galaxies; nothing like clusters. At smaller scales there are planets: solid balls nothing like galaxies. At smaller scales still ... well, you get the picture. It ain't fractal.

That would imply space is a "thing" or "stuff". It isn't. It is just a way of measuring the distance between things. It only expands on cosmological scales because it is only on those scales that the universe is (roughly) homogeneous.