Wrong. When there is a continuous range of outcomes, a probability of zero doesn't mean "this event is impossible." A probability _density_ of zero, however, would mean that.

Actually, if you've got some basic knowledge of ordinary differential equations, Stogatz has a very readable text on non-linear differential equations and how fractals naturally arise as the stable solutions of chaotic systems.

I call shenanigans. All I see are some ill-defined pseudo-mathematical terms casually being tossed around. This is exactly the kind of hand-wavey, pop-sci explanation that appeals to string theory enthusiasts. I'm not saying Palmer's ideas are without merit (and conversely I'm not saying they have merit), but just because an explanation is appealing it doesn't make it scientific.

The minute you try to make scientific research into a commodity like this, you will kill all scientific research. Do you think 19th century physicists had iPhones in mind when they were creating rudimentary batteries and experimenting with electromagnetism? Do you think Maxwell only published his famous paper so he could enable the creation of hybrid cars? Could anyone have predicted digital computers? Hell, could the inventors of digital computers have predicted modern desktops?

That's actually exactly the opposite of a falsifiable hypothesis.

Yeah, there's some merit to your point, but I'd hardly call this pseudo-science. The worst thing you could label it is extremely speculative. Any other falsifiable theory that tries to explain the missing energy is on the same footing at this point.

This certainly is science: it's a model that fits well with the data we have and makes falsifiable predictions. It's true there's a lot here we don't understand very well, but that's exactly what these scientists are trying to address. Sure it may turn out that this model is wrong, but there's not enough data right now to say conclusively that it isn't (however, there may be, as scientists continue to make better and better observations to test this model and others).

No. Simply no. There is no better way to turn a student off of math than to make them work SAT problems ad nauseum. It's so far removed from what an undergrad pursuing a degree in math will learn.