FLRW

Both nuclear power and nuclear weapons are derived from one principle; that mass can be converted into energy, and the equation that exactly predicts that conversion is E = mc2. So what has that to do with Special Relativity? The answer is that E = mc2 is derived directly from Special Relativity. If relativity is wrong, then nuclear weapons simply wouldn't work. Any theory or point of view that opposes Special Relativity must explain where E = mc2 comes from if not relativity. Other models of relativity that contain E = mc2 exist but here we are concerned with the standard model as proposed by Einstein.


OMG, is Kermos really Jelly Roll ?

FLRW

I like Pinball1970's last comment on the site you just mentioned: It looks Kermos has finally left the building. Since he has had his lying arse handed to him on Cosmology in the religion section, perhaps he may try his hand at Evolution? "Why stupid Evolution is a leap of faith because science is stupid."

FLRW

Hmmmm, studies (such as analysis published in PNAS) indicate that undocumented immigrants are arrested and convicted for violent crimes, including homicide, at lower rates than native-born U.S. citizens.

FLRW

The Big Bang theory is not a leap of faith because it relies on mathematical models, testable predictions, and hard physical evidence. Unlike faith, which accepts unproven beliefs, the scientific model of the universe changes and updates when new data arrives. Isn't children dying from leukemia proof of no God.

FLRW

See https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsnr/article/76/1/155/48389/The-1919-eclipse-results-that-verified-general


Abstract

Einstein became world famous on 7 November 1919, following press publication of a meeting held in London on 6 November 1919 where the results were announced of two British expeditions led by Eddington, Dyson and Davidson to measure how much background starlight is bent as it passes the Sun. Three data sets were obtained: two showed the measured deflection matched the theoretical prediction of Einstein's 1915 Theory of General Relativity, and became the official result; the third was discarded as defective.

At the time, the experimental result was accepted by the expert astronomical community. However, in 1980 a study by philosophers of science Earman and Glymour claimed that the data selection in the 1919 analysis was flawed and that the discarded data set was fully valid and was not consistent with the Einstein prediction, and that, therefore, the overall result did not verify General Relativity. This claim, and the resulting accusation of Eddington's bias, was repeated with exaggeration in later literature and has become ubiquitous.

The 1919 and 1980 analyses of the same data provide two discordant conclusions. We reanalyze the 1919 data, and identify the error that undermines the conclusions of Earman and Glymour.

FLRW

The Sun has been shining for 4.6 billion years. Considerable hydrogen has been converted to helium in the core, where the burning is most rapid. The helium remains there, where it absorbs radiation more readily than hydrogen. This raises the central temperature and increases the brightness. Model calculations conclude that the Sun becomes 10 percent brighter every billion years; hence it must now be at least 40 percent brighter than at the time of planet formation. This would produce an increase in Earth’s temperature, but no such effect appears in the fossil record. There were probably compensating thermostatic effects in the atmosphere of Earth, such as the greenhouse effect and cloudiness. The young Sun may also have been more massive, and thus more luminous, and would have lost its early mass through the solar wind. The increase in solar brightness can be expected to continue as the hydrogen in the core is depleted and the region of nuclear burning moves outward. At least as important for the future of Earth is the fact that tidal friction will slow down Earth’s rotation until, in four billion years, its rotation will match that of the Moon, turning once in 30 of our present days.

FLRW

According to Sean Carroll, a cosmologist and physics professor at the California Institute of Technology, life after death is 'impossible'.

Carroll said: "The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood."

For there to be an afterlife, this theory rests on the premise that human consciousness is separate from our bodies.

However, it is scientifically believed that consciousness is the result of atoms and electrons, rather than a soul that can lie outside the human body.

Dr Carroll continued: "Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle.

"The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood. And there's no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die."

He also points to the Quantum Field Theory (QFT) as proof that there is no afterlife for the souls of the deceased to go to.

This theory essentially says that each type of particle has a field within the universe - one for photons, another for electrons and an additional one for every kind of particle.

And no 'spirit' particles have been discovered by quantum tests, which would point to no afterlife existing.


FLRW

Scientists know the elements in the sun through spectroscopy, which analyzes the unique light signatures (or wavelengths) absorbed or emitted by different chemical elements. When sunlight passes through a prism, dark lines appear in the spectrum. Each element blocks specific wavelengths, acting like a chemical fingerprint. Why don't you say what kind of education you have?

FLRW

Your statement that redshift is merely an untested assumption is incorrect; while the interpretation of redshift as evidence for cosmic expansion is a theoretical model, the phenomenon of redshift itself is a rigorously tested and observed fact. 

  1. Observed Phenomenon: Redshift is the measurable increase in the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. It is confirmed by spectroscopy, which matches observed spectral lines to known atomic structures, proving the shift is real and not an artifact of measurement. 
  2. Testing and Validation: The relationship between redshift and distance (Hubble’s Law) is supported by extensive observational data.  While there are ongoing debates about the Hubble tension and potential systematic biases, the redshift data itself has been replicated and verified by thousands of scientists over decades. 
  3. Interpretation vs. Observation: The primary scientific debate centers on the cause of redshift. The standard cosmological model attributes it to the expansion of space (cosmological redshift), while alternative views suggest it may be caused by light attenuation (tired light) or other mechanisms.  However, even critics acknowledge the redshift measurement is accurate, disputing only its implication for universal expansion. 

In summary, redshift is a well-established empirical observation, not an untested assumption.  The controversy lies in whether it is primarily due to Doppler motion, gravitational effects, or the stretching of spacetime. 


FLRW

Hmmmm, Officer Brian Sicknick: A U.S. Capitol Police officer who was attacked and sprayed with a chemical substance by rioters during the defense of the Capitol. He suffered two strokes and passed away the following evening.

FLRW

Definning God

FLRW · 3 months ago

Hmmm, Christianity is the major religion declining the fastest in the United States. Within Christianity, mainline Protestant denominations (such as the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church USA) have experienced the most rapid drop in membership and attendance, while the overall share of Americans identifying as Christian has dropped significantly over recent decades in favor of the religiously unaffiliated.