Strange

There is no "speed of time". Photons move at the speed of light. The Lorentz transform cannot be applied in this case because you end up dividing by zero. (So much of the rest of your post becomes irrelevant.) We observe and measure photons all the time without stopping time, so I guess this must be wrong. They are different models for exactly the same thing. An interesting idea, but it is just as impossible to reduce an object's mass to zero as it is to accelerate it to the speed of light.

0.001 is a number. It is not frequency, length, time pr number of kittens until the units are supplied. 0.001 Hz is a frequency. 0.001 Kg is a mass. 0.001 mm is a length In this case it is 0.001% - this is the amount by which the calculation is incorrect (expressed as a fraction: the answer is 0.001/100th different from the correct answer). Yes, kilo means 1000. It is commonly applied to distance (kilometre) and weight (kilogram), etc. It could be applied to time (kiloseconds) but I don't think I have ever seen that. Milli means 1/1000 and can be applied to distance (millmetre) and weight (millgram), time (milliseconds), etc. No. Kilogram measures mass, which is independent of distance or time.

You won your bet! I skipped the apparently irrelevant paragraph.... I haven't seen anything else about it yet.

If we know everything already then how can dark energy be only hypothetical?

In general, photons don't interact at all, as far as I know. I think that under high energy conditions photons can collide and produce matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics Edit: I wouldn't say photons are pure energy; they have other attributes, the most obvious being spin and momentum.

If you are talking about seeing colours (that shouldn't be there) then there are many possible explanations: optical illusion (there are many optical illusions that generate colour from black and white images; including "impossible" colours like yellow-blue) or hallucination (due to drugs, tiredness, illness, etc) or synaesthesia or ... You need to understand that pretty much everything you see is generated by the brain, not the eyes. This is a very complex process that can create all sorts of odd effects. So it is very easy to "fool" the visual system.

Strictly speaking they don't. They appear to be point particles (and therefore no axis). They have "intrinsic" angular momentum which does not appear to be due to anything rotating.

YOU are the one who needs to clarify what you think the word "objective" means, rather than throwing every possible definition into the thread in order to obfuscate and hide your confusion. It is very obvious what objective evidence means in a scientific context (see below). It isn't what you are describing. They don't do that by videoing a group of policemen making a subjective judgement about the speed, and then declare "that must be objective because we videoed it". They do it by measuring the times and distance involved, in quantitative units. Just to be clear: measuring. That is: M E A S U R I N G. Something that you are not doing. What units are you measuring "open mindedness" in? Holes per square meter? And how do you extract this from the video? If you are making objective measurements, then there is clearly no need to interview the candidates - just make the measurement.

To a limited extent. It only applies exactly for something that is spherical and symmetrical. But it is often a good approximation in many real world cases. We can often treat planets, moons and asteroids, etc as if they were spherical (even when they are not) and therefore model their gravity as coming from a point at the centre. If you need to model the effects of a very irregular asteroid when you get close to it, then you can't use the shell theorem. If you want to do a very detailed analysis of Earth's gravity at different locations (and depths) then you can't use the shell theorem.

Yes, I didn't phrase that very well ! The basic point of the shell theorem is that inside a sphere (with a wall of even thickness all around) is that there is no overall gravity anywhere inside. You might think that if you get closer to the wall on one side, then that wall would attract you more than the opposite wall (which is further away). This makes sense at the centre. All of the surface of the sphere is the same distance away and so pulls on you the same amount. But what if you are not at the centre? What Newton cleverly showed is that there is a smaller area of the wall that is close to you but there is a much larger are of wall that is further away. It works out that if you add up the effects from all areas of the wall, there is an equal gravitational force in all directions. To work this out you really need basic calculus. But it is one of those (rare?) things that is quite hard to explain in words but is a really simple exercise in calculus. Which is why we rely on maths in science! The other part of the shell theorem is for outside the sphere. The gravitational force of the sphere behaves exactly the same as if it came from a single point at the centre of the sphere (with all the mass of the sphere there.

Not necessarily. We measure all sort of phenomena by indirect effects that don't involve light. (Although we tend to use our eyes to read the final results, but there are blind scientists so that isn't necessary). Christ. That was painful. ("Well, I'm errr.... no let me .... uh ... change that ... so.... what we .... and um ...") He could have written himself a script, or even some notes before he started. Anyway. I think he was trying to use the way light illuminates the wall as an analogy for the amount of mass that contributes gravity to your position. But it is a confusing way of explaining it presented in a confusing way.

"Hypothesis ... might ... perhaps" does not equal "fact" (fun or otherwise). Although it is an interesting hypothesis.

Sounds like this may be homework/coursework related so I will just give you a clue Think about how many bits are needed to encode the 64 different levels for each sample. Now think about the number of samples gathered at 200Hz. Now do some multiplication ...

Especially as the simplest model of a black hole (Schwarzschild) is not rotating.

That is correct: gravity acts radially (towards the center of mass). This corrects your earlier statement that it acted tangentially. I don't think so. It doesn't seem that strange. Different forces act in different ways. The strong force, for example, is always attractive (ecpet at very short distances). But in GR (which is science's "effort to explain it") gravity is not a force anyway. It means distances increase. They would be very confused if they concluded that. "In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#bigbang Nobody knows. We don't even know if there was any such "creation". The theory isn't about "creation". It is about the evolution of universe we see around us. There is speculation about "creation" or "before the big bang" but I ignore it all until it becomes science.

I have no doubt about this effect at all. I have heard of it before (and experienced the burning effect - without even needing particularly cold or warm conditions because of Raynaud's disease). But there appears to be no logical connection between this and your claim that "There is no direct way for the skin to detect a burning sensation (below the level of pain) without activating the Cold Thermoreceptors". So I was assuming there was some independent source that would confirm this.

I see nothing in the sources you cite to support that point of view.

He is found of doing that.

I don't think so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade

Yep. You need to buy a better dictionary that has the words "subjective" and "objective" in it. You clearly don't have a clue what they mean.

I think it is rather sweet that people with almost no understanding of the subject think that they are going to change the world. Ah, bless.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that experiencing warm and cold together causes the experience of burning heat? From his you deduce that we have no direct way experiencing "heat" (something extremely hot rather than just warm)? That conclusion does not necessarily follow. We could have a mechanism for experiencing dangerous heat (or cold) which is stimulated by this grill illusion. And, in fact, that appear to be what one of your sources says: There are three types of receptors: And: From: http://www.questacon.edu.au/outreach/travelling-exhibitions/perception-deception/exhibits/can-temperature-cause-surprising-sensations So it seems we do have receptors that respond to "heat" and they can be fooled into responding to "warm".

We measure things with instruments; with care this can be considered objective data. Your subjective opinion of someone is not a measurement. (Or do you have an openmindedness-meter?) Different people will make different subjective judgements.

But you are not making measurements (accurate or otherwise). You are just making a subjective judgement about someone. Showing others a video of you making a subjective judgement does not magically make it objective. What if several people tell you that your judgement was wrong and that they don't think the candidate is as open minded or "wise" as you think?

Experimentally correct and predicted by theory. There isn't a lot of wiggle room there. The trouble is, light moves in different directions. When light is moving from left to right, are you shrinking from right to left? Does turning a laser beam around cause everything to shrink in different directions? These are both examples of "argument from incredulity" (I don't believe it so it must be wrong). The whole purpose of the scientific method is get away from these personal biases and look at the objective evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance Force is not energy and there is no reason for it to "run out". Light does not form a valid frame of reference (because it involves dividing by zero). There is a whole thread on this somewhere. No. Please demonstrate this in mathematical detail.