Strange

All directions because the Sun is a sphere. (As someone mentioned earlier, this might be affected by the Sun's magnetic field.) I don't know what a "gravity belt" is. I don't know if the Sun has "different gravity belts". And I don't know why this would have any effect on the solar winds. You can observe the "surface" (outer layers) of the Sun. For example, you can see the rotation as sunspots move.

I assume you are asking what direction it goes? From http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SolarWind.shtml

No. By the heat of the outer layer of gas/plasma. The Sun does not spin fast enough to cause stuff to fly away at 900km/s. At the equator, the Sun's rotational velocity is about 2km/s.

You mean magical forces are real!? Great, where do I sign up for those?

Yes. It is plasma and gas. Therefore a fluid. No. This is normal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia What is not normal, is taking these thoughts seriously. This sort of delusional thinking can be a sign of mental illness. What unexplained beams of light? You can call it what you want, you are still wrong.

I think you have misunderstood (or misrepresented) the point being made here. Each of these things are necessary but, by themselves, are not sufficient. However, in combination they are sufficient. In fact, the presence of diversity in a population (of which mutation and genetic drift are two possible causes) and natural selection guarantee that evolution will take place. Of course, there are other mechanisms for creating diversity, other methods of selection and various other factors (epigenetics and horizontal gene transfer) which complicate the basic idea. As I say, there is no discrepancy. Excpet, of course, they can. Basing a new theory on a lie, is not a great start. Or maybe it is because you don't know anything about the theory of evolution? You might be even more impressed by the real science. Apart from, arguably, sexual selection this seems totally irrelevant. What testable predictions does her theory make? How well does her theory measure up against the evidence? But is it supported by evidence.

That depends on your definition of "know for sure". We have a very successful explanation of gravity as the curvature of space-time. Just a minor correction: it is mass that is given to some particles by the Higgs field. But that is not the main source of the mass of the matter around us (that mainly comes from the energy holding the neutrons and protons together). The graviton is just an idea. No one yet know how to describe gravity in terms of particle interactions. It may not be possible.

The author wanted to call his book "The Goddamn Particle" to reflect how difficult it was to detect it. The publisher thought that might offend people and changed it. I don't suppose there is much, because of the solar wind. But it would be vaporised and then probably turned into plasma by the heat. They don't really. The fact they are both hot and both fluids would account for any superficial similarities. I doubt these forces have any significant affect on the atoms. Until the forces are strong enough to break molecules apart. Nothing electrical, just pressure and friction - mainly pressure I think - for example, get a bicycle pump, put your thumb over the end end press the pump: the air inside will get hot (and possibly burn your thumb).

Put a football next to some cement powder and observe the gravitational attraction. (There isn't any.) No, that was a f**ing stupid nickname for the Higgs boson. Invented to market a book.

"There is neither a logical cause nor a mechanism nor a known mover, acting on liquid molecules. Hence, root cause of Brownian motion remains a mystery." In what way is the motion of molecules not a an explanation? I see that your 5 page vixra (aka crank) article does not present an alternative model and is therefore of no value.

Not taking into account quantum effects. Using seismic imaging - examining the vibrations and echoes of earthquakes. So you want to know the gravitational effect of a ball of gas scaled down to the size of a football. In other words, a football. How much gravitational effect does a football have on a bag of cement? Pretty much zero. It the same speed as "emptiness" or "silence". Nothing. It is a fundamental particle.

This. But also this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox

The electrical signals in neurons do not travel as electrical currents - which may be what you are thinking of. It is a much more complex biochemical process. There are structures in the cell membrane that can pump ions in and out out the cell. Nerve impulses are transmitted as a "cascade" of these ion pumps along the length of the neuron. At the end of a neuron, this causes the release of various chemicals which stimulate the surrounding cells to fire (or not).

Electrons don't randomly switch between spin states; it takes energy to change it. This is (in my very limited understanding) how a spin based memory would work: each cell would contain an electron in either spin up or spin down representing 1 and 0. Note that other quantum effects are used in various devices. For example, flash memory depends on tunnelling to get charge into and out of a "floating" (isolated) gate electrode.

You have an equation. It can have multiple solutions. The FLRW metric is one. The Schwarzschild metric is another. They describe different situations. The FLRW metric describes a homogeneous distribution of mass. The Schwarzschild metric describes a spherically symmetric mass. The Kerr solution is the same for a rotating mass. And so on. I don't think anyone said it does. There are other exact solutions which do not describe the universe we live in. The FLRW seems to be a good approximation, on large enough scales. Of course. (Obviously , it can't see through the Earth, which seems to be what you are talking about.) The CMB is also very faint and if you are trying to use it to account for gravity, then you have to explain why turning a light bulb on doesn't press you flat against the wall. Of course not. People like you never do. You are convinced that because you made an idea up (and therefore, by definition, can understand it) it must be correct. Sad but very very common. They are looking. Because understanding the CMB tells us a lot about the early universe. You need to show how the math is wrong. Can you do that? The attraction is not "assumed", it is consequence of the curvature. For example, as an analogy, consider two people walking towards the north pole along different lines of longitude: as the travel, they get closer together. Is there a "force of attraction"? No, it is just a result of the geometry of the Earth. Copyright what? You already have copyright on these posts. Write a book and you will have copyright on that. But no one is going to want to "steal" this idea anyway. You can't patent a theory. Only a mechanism using it. If it were patented then it would have been published. (And if it were more than 20 years ago, then the patent would have expired.

You can think of it as swapping motion through time for motion through space. The Lorentz transform is actually equivalent to a rotation between the time and space dimensions.

That is part of the reason. Also just because there are stars and galaxies so far away that the light from them has not had time to reach us yet (in the lifetime of the universe). I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you asking how light falls off with distance? If so, it follows an "inverse square law". What this means is that if you double the distance, the amount of light is divided by four.

Then your spreadsheet is obviously wrong. <shrug>

Well, the two points in question are the Earth and the Sun. However, to measure that, you need so other reference points, so you can calculate the Sun-Earth distance. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=400 http://www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/aaawiki/doku.php?id=what_is_the_easiest_way_to_measure_the_distance_between_the_earth_and_the_sun Dark is just the absence of light. It is not a "thing," any more than "empty" or "quiet" are. Err, no. You don't talk about "science ahead of our current thought". You talk about really, really, basic well-understood science. It just seems advanced to you because you are so profoundly ignorant. But you make an attempt to learn, which is good. No. http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/lightspeed_evidence.html

Sounds like spintronics. Or maybe not. Normal semiconductors depend on the controlling the energy levels of electrons for their behvaiour.

12 months in a year because that is (approximately) the number of full moons in a year (that is where to word motnh comes from, month=moon). A non-existent ruler? The (average) distance from the Earth to the Sun is called an Astronomical Unit (AU). 1 AU = 92 955 807.3 miles = 149 597 871 km Something has gone wrong there. I make it about 3,700. Very slightly as we get closer and further away. I don't think it is noticeable to the naked eye.

The Egyptians (and several other ancient civilizations) divided the time between sunrise and sunset into 12 periods. They probably chose 12 because of the 12 months in the year. These 12 hours varied in length over the year, because the length of the day varies (and because time was mainly measured with sundials). The hour didn't become a fixed period of time until the invention of mechanical clocks (about 800 years ago, maybe?)

I guess we will never know ...

I can't imagine who would think such a thing or why. There are some very tiny anisotropies in the CMB. None are related the position of the Earth. as far as I know. In the "more accurate" FLRW based model, there is no centre of the universe.

That is all science ever does.