Strange

That is not how science works. You have to try and make sense of what is, not try an impose your wishes on reality. Sounds like you need to learn about a little thing called the "theory of relativity".

A wave of what? What sort of wave can be detected by all these different senses? And why just five sense? Why? How can you say this when it isn't clear what the wave is or what the sensors are? They are probably linked in their brain. It does not prove (or even imply) that "senses come from a single point, like a wave". By the way, note that science doesn't deal in "proof". Rather than looking for things that you believe confirm your idea, you should be looking for things that disprove it. That is how science works. Now I think you might be on to something there. You're welcome.

1. It is a video, so I won't watch it. 2. It is obviously bogus because: "This video demonstrates without formulae that Einstein's "theory" of relativity is flawed" a) The theory is not flawed b) If it were, it would require a mathematical proof so anyone who claims to do it "without formulae" is lying or deluded. c) It's a video Why are you relying on the work of obvious cranks and trolls? YOU said that Einstein's theories are flawed. So why don't YOU tell us what YOU think is wrong in YOUR OWN words (and math). Or admit that you were wrong. Which would be simpler all round.

And yet most people manage to communicate very effectively. You may be one of the rare exceptions. So now you are saying that your previous statement (If one tries to teach it most students will learn) was a lie as well? Or have you just changed your mind? Or are you just trolling by posting random self-contradictory statements? Really? Harder than tensor calculus? Harder than juggling 14 balls? Harder than the Chinese writing system? I waded through your usual incoherent text. I gather you are trying to say that human vision is complex and liable to being misled. Wow! What a revelation. That is why science does not depend on such subjective observations. No. I just want to know what a "scalar question" is. How hard is that? You used the term, surely you know what it means.

I think it might be: WTF?

And senses are not dimensions.

Well, that is a refreshingly honest admission. Thank you. No energy is created. That is the classical (electromagnetic wave) description. That is how I was going to answer your question. If you want a more detailed description then maybe you want to look into QED: http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

No it doesn't. But apart from that, the energy of electromagnetic radiation is already taken into account in the known mass-energy of the universe. As you seem reasonably numerate, why don't you take the next step and find figures for the photon flux in the universe and work out the total energy.

Obviously not true or people would not be able to communicate. There are a small number of people who insist on making up their own meanings for words, which makes communication hard. But on the other hand, crumble fractuate ping wimple fish. Riiiight. So you agree that you were wrong when you said it was difficult to teach. Was that a deliberate lie? Or do you change your mind every 5 minutes? Or is it because the word "difficult" actually means "easy" in your idiolect? You don't provide any context to provide a meaning for "scalar question". As you refuse to explain what you mean, I deduce it translates to "shameless garbage". I can only thank God that I do not "think" like you do. I am a professional writer so I would be unemployed (unemployable) if I wrote like you.

Please click the button marked QUOTE. You might be amazed at what happens. "Believeing" has nothing to do with science. There is no evidence for the particle you describe. It is a figment of your imagination. You can speculate all you like, but without evidence it is worthless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion I simply asked for evidence. Is this your way of saying that you don't have any? Apparently. Once again you are making up your own unique meanings. I don't suppose you could actually define what you think "observation" means without all that waffle? Not that difficult. What is a "scalar question"? Do you deliberately make up these nonsense phrases? Is it an attempt to sound clever? If so, it isn't working. Only if you share that definition. Science uses a lot of terms with specialised meanings. But the definitions are readily available. Talking to you is like conversing through a program that makes random word substitutions. (And apparently it is our fault, not yours.) Poorly. As you repeatedly demonstrate. (But here it seems to be your defintion vs everyone else's definition.) I thought that was ontology.

Or disagreement can arise when one person is wrong. As you proceed to demonstrate with your comments about photons. You still haven't provided an example...

I guess that is because that is their main use in modern English. It does give a very brief modern meaning for each word as it is important for the discussion of etymology.

There are schools in the UK that have started teaching philosophy at a very early age, if not specifically metaphysics. I think this is valuable because the first things you learn in philosophy are how to analyse problems, what questions to ask, and the nature of logic. I don't know what value metaphysics adds. I don't think observation is the key skill, but critical thinking. In other words, what to do with the observations. And what further observations need to be made. Societal, ethical and economic implications might be more useful.

Most people I know have a very good understanding of inertia. So it seems that, again, you are extrapolating from your own ignorance to the world at large. You made a claim (Everybody thinks that resisting to change is good for him, but no good for others) which is not true, in my experience, so I am asking what evidence you have for claiming this. In other words, the evidence that will prove me wrong. I'm sure some people think that. You do, maybe. But everybody? I don't think that, so your claim is trivially falsified.

Because it is not a dictionary in the same sense as the OED. The OED provides definitions, usage, citations and etymology. The Online Etymological Dictionary (OED?) is purely intended to give a summary of etymology.

What energies would these bursts have? What would their duration be? What does "vicinity" mean (i.e. how close)? In order to test it, it needs to be quantified. That means you will need a good understanding of the underlying physics as well as mathematical ability. They are more likely to want to spend their time investigating their own ideas.

By whom? Evidence? That has no apparent connection to your previous sentence so I am not sure what the point is. Because it would be against the rules. He did explain how they were connected. He may not have explained "why" but (again) that is philosophy, not physics.

As has been stated before, when it comes to science and new theories (the subject of this thread), resistance to change is not just a good thing it is essential. It is why science works. Yep. a) This is off topic. b) Newton formulated this (inertia) as a scientific theory centuries ago. You would do well to study his work and methods.

I was going to write a reply, but I would only be reproducing some of what is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_oscillator

This appears to be another example of the etymological fallacy. Shall and will are both auxiliary verbs that express the future tense. The future tense of "be" is "will be", "shall be" or going to be". Delta212 is correct that "will" as an auxiliary derives from a verb meaning "to wish". http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=will "Shall" derives from a verb meaning "owe" or "must" http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=shall Because of their origins, there can still an implication that "will" means something you intend to do, rather than something that is inevitable. But I don't think many modern speakers make this distinction.

It looks a little bit like the subjunctive. (But because English doesn't mark the subjunctive, it is hard to be sure.)

This so totally and utterly irrelevant to the subject of the discussion that I cannot believe you have said it. It is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. Rain has to fall down. Do you also want to use that as evidence for the fact that scientists are unable to discover anything new? Produce new evidence and a scientist will change their mind (without suffocating). We have evidence that this happens, so your continued attempts to deny it are getting more and more ludicrous. But note that pseudoscientists, cranks and crackpots would sooner stop breathing than acknowledge the existence of evidence. Perhaps you are projecting your own attitudes on to others?

The difference is that the maths allows you to make quantitative predictions which allow the theory to be tested. Mersini-Houghton's assumptions may be right or wrong. Her maths may be right or wrong. The maths can be checked by itself. But her assumptions and conclusions will be tested by comparing her results to actual observation. On the other hand... How do we test this? That is why vague notions expressed in words are useless.

1. The reactions will not be random. 2. Adding more energy will not necessarily cause more reactions to take place. In general it might shift the equilibrium. If there is enough energy to break certain bonds then a new equilibrium may be created. I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. You seem to be describing (in a slightly confusing way) one way abiogenesis may have occurred (some sort of "chemical evolution"). But you also seem to imply that chemicals are conscious and drive evolution in a particular direction? Or have I misunderstood? Well, apart from the fact that (a) the reactions are not random and (b) the results are not necessarily predictable, the mechanism is roughly as you have described. Selection pressures drive reactions to produce more of the "successful" chemicals (those that are selected). However, it seems very unlikely that life was created by "random" chemical reactions. It seems more likely that a particular chemical environment (e.g. proton gradients at deep sea vents) provided a starting point.