Strange

All of relativity does not depend on this. It is a consequence of relativity. I have wasted too many hours trying to explain this very simple thought experiment to people who refuse to understand it. I am not doing it again. If you don't understand it, that is your problem, not relativity's.

I'm sure that's true in some cases. Not really; that isn't an illusion. Swapping left and right means that left and right are swapped. An illusion is where you see something that is not what is presented to the eyes. It is also another thing that contradicts the "no one can see anything new" argument.

I have studied the history of science. This included material on the mathematics and science of ancient Egypt. It seems that you are not the "expert" that you claim to be. The changes through the history of Egyption civilization are very well documented. It seems that you are not the "expert" that you claim to be. That is true of many people in the world today, and has always been true of large numbers of people. Citation needed. The fact that there is no documentary evidence from a particular period is not irrelevant (as any student of historical linguistics would know). It is highly relevant. All I need to do is do a bit of research and show that these words have cognates in other Afro-Asiatic languages and your argument collapses. But you know what, it isn't worth the effort. Only in your head. I have said no such thing. Please don't put words in my mouth.

The passage you quote does not appear to support that. Nowhere does it say that they had smelly feet, nor does it refer to them as bumpkins. I question it.

I don't understand all of that but, basically, yes. Optical illusions are caused by the visual systems of the brain misinterpreting information from the eyes. That is supported by a lot of experimental evidence. What is not so well supported is that: a) Optical illusions are caused by language; and b) They can be overcome with experience. I am not convinced that either of these are true. Hence the request for supporting references.

So you reject the physical evidence because it conflicts with your personal ideas. Please provide a reference to an academic source which describes the Egyptians as "sun addled bumpkins". You have been asked to support this claim before. Will you do it now? So I thought to myself, "surely, with all those hills, they must have had a word for 'slope'." So I checked an online dictionary. And of course they do (, sqd). And words for ramp (r stA / smA). Surely you must have realised by now that it is very easy for people to check that you are lying.

It wasn't the middle of the night here. And the reference I provided included physical evidence. That can't be true in my case because, as I said, I don't know anything about the subject. But a quick check of your claims shows them to be incorrect. Then it should be easy for you to provide the evidence requested. Intead of your usual evasiveness ("maybe if I waffle on for long enough people won't notice that I haven't answered the question." Have you considered a career in politics?) As so many of your statements are obviously false (if not deliberate lies) you will have to forgive me if I don't believe you. I'm not sure anyone claims they are the only means they could have been built. The Wikipedia article lists a number of possibilities. It could even have been a combination of methods. Nope. What about the physical evidence of ramps referred to earlier? What about the physical evidence of ramps referred to earlier? That is not "logic", it is an assertion/guess abut what people thought. Please provide some evidence to support this claim.

Please provide a reference to support this claim. How can an optical illusion be caused by language? Please provide a reference to support this claim.

Any evidence to support that? Or just yet another unsubstantiated claim? How do you know that? I haven't watched this particular video again, but there is a version where the intruder takes the ball and bounces it. Evidence required. Evidence required.

I don't think so. But I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.

And that's a problem because ...? I think you are in the UK? http://www.maplin.co.uk/

They have the wrong energies. And, anyway, it is irrelevant: converting photons to matter will not make any difference. Also, the whole point about dark matter is that it does not interact electromagnetically. Therefore it cannot be photons or (normal) matter/antimatter.

Then you have a very different interpretation of "focal point" than me. If there is the same amount of light everywhere, then it isn't being focussed. 1. It doesn't make any difference because all you are doing is converting energy to mass (and maybe back to energy). This does not make any difference to the gravitational field. 2. If the antimatter somehow formed clumps, then they would be highly visible because, surrounded by matter, they would radiate large amounts of gamma rays. Observations have looked for such radiation (and are still looking) and nothing has yet been found.

Then it is not what is commonly known as a "perpetual motion machine" as it has a source of (external) energy. For example, this will spin indefinitely as long as there is a source of light:

The classic example is this: Note that studies show that approximately 50% of people fail to see something unexpected. Of course, second time round approximately 100% people do see. So this disproves both "people" and "can't".

There is no external energy source required because they are not doing work.

Light does not "converge" on our planet. The light from the sun, for example, is diverging even as some of it falls on the Earth. And it falls on every part of the Earth. So it is not a focal point. And if photons pass through "every point" (they do) then no point is a focal point. Even if it happens, what difference do you think it would make? Also, it would produce both matter and antimatter. The antimatter would rapidly annihilate with an equal amount of matter, producing photons. So no net change.

Photons that do not interact with anything will continue indefinitely; they will not decay spontaneously. (This has nothing to with their constant velocity. Well, indirectly I suppose. They have constant velocity because they are massless. That is also partly why there is no decay path [i think].)

Only the mass is relevant. Yes, because of conservation of angular momentum. Maybe. (Although, if it was actually a "spiral" then the answer be no!)

I assume you mean "internal E"? Anyway, the Sun's source of energy is finite. In a few billion years its reactions will end.

There is no reason to think that it is a universal concept. For example, there is no concept of energy conservation for the whole universe so the question becomes meaningless. Not necessarily. The orbit of the moon is continually changing do to the loss of energy due to tidal effects. There is, I assume, also a very tiny loss of energy due to gravitational waves. So I doubt an orbit is stable for all time. I don't know if science does say that. All I said was that that is not what "perpetual motion" usually means. You would have to watch the solar system for an infinite time to answer the question!

What makes you think that such focal points exist? There are relatively few photons with energies above 1MeV. And most of those do not come from stars. Also, if they create electron-positron pairs, there is no new mass-energy created so there is no change to the gravitational effect. And then the positron will quickly annihilate with an electron, recreating the original gamma rays.

It may be worth noting that the term "perpetual motion" is normally used to mean a machine that can run forever with no input of energy. And in some cases, allowing the production of energy. It is that meaning that is absolutely impossible. Whether the universe will continue forever is unknown.

I wasn't aware it was ever proven in the first place. There, and always have been, multiple hypotheses. Many of them supported by calculations and computer modelling. This sort of blatant lie is why I refuse to discuss your "theory". What is the point of trying to discuss an idea with someone who makes up their own meanings for words and lies consistently. EDIT This is not a subject that I know anything about but a few seconds reading show that this is a lie as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques

There are too many. But I have asked you several times to explain specific words and phrases. You always refuse. So what is the point of asking you about another hundred? Again: what is a "scalar question"? Is it really so hard to explain. (preferably in less than 1,000 words) Still repeating that lie after it has been proven wrong repeatedly? Pathetic.