Itoero

Calculations suggest that physical information(like mass) could permanently disappear in a black hole. (Black hole information paradox)

Thanks for that reply. It's just my opinion but someone like Hugh Ross, that studies both fields intensively, would not be taken seriously at the time of Georges Lemaittre. I don't think Georges studied science from a religious background like Hugh Ross. "The paper had little impact because the journal in which it was published was not widely read by astronomers outside Belgium" Something like this would not happen in this modern time. Papers are posted online. When you have a scientific discovery then it's spread trough the world of science. Your idea's are not stuck within certain scientific communities. From the Wikipedia: "He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, " Why is that?

I read about Georges Lemaitre on Wikipedia...I just gave my explanation. How do you explain it? It's just my explanation. How do you explain what happened? I mean someone like Hugh Ross. Have you looked into Lemaittre's biography? Stop making this silly assumptions on what I think about religion.

The concept of relativistic mass and “Einstein’s most famous equation E = mc2 " were quite common in old textbooks. So why should we challenge it? If such renowned experts in the field as Tolman, Born, and Fock in the past and Penrose and Rindler today find the concept of relativistic mass useful, why not to follow the motto “All true believers break their eggs at the convenient end” , instead of entering in an endless and arid dispute between Big-Endians and Little-Endians? The answer is simple. Modern physics offers a picture of reality that is completely different from the classical Newtonian picture. It is impossible to master this kind of reality if you try to put it in a Procrustean bed of Newtonian concepts. V. A. Fock once remarked that “physics is essentially a simple science. The main problem in it is to understand which symbol means what”. As we have seen above, the meaning of the symbol m in Newton’s ~F = m~a is more profound than the primary Newtonian “measure of inertia.” Unfortunately, modern education ignores the twentieth century’s achievements in deciphering this symbol and bases its exposition on classical Newtonian physics as it was understood at the end of the nineteenth century, with only fragmentary and eclectic inclusions from modern physics. After all, relativistic mass, if properly used, can even offer interesting insights in hyperbolic geometry. Contrary to popular belief, it seems Einstein himself never used E = mc2 in the context of the equivalence of energy and mass — only E0 = mc2, that is, equivalence of the rest energy and the invariant mass. It may seem tempting to use this fact as evidence against velocity-dependent relativistic mass. However, in our opinion, this fact is completely irrelevant in the context of the present article where we appeal not to Einstein’s authority but to the logic of special relativity. General relativity provides another drastic change in our concept of mass, deserving its own story. It is true that the Newtonian concept of gravitational mass can be relativistically generalized in some simple situations. For example, if a heavy object with mass M moves at relativistic velocity past to a test particle initially at rest with a large enough impact parameter, it induces a change in the test particle’s transverse velocity corresponding to the gravitational mass of the moving body, γ(1+β2)M, not γM . Again, this fact should not be used as an argument against relativistic mass γM. Instead we should be aware of the dramatic changes that general relativity requires of our Newtonian intuition. It turns out that it is impossible to give a general definition of a system’s total mass in general relativity. Even for isolated systems, which produce asymptotically flat spacetimes, two reasonable definitions of the total mass can be envisaged, related to the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner and Bondi energy-momentum tensors at spatial infinity, respectively . We do not pursue these subtle matters here any further; again, the concept of mass in general relativity deserves its own story. It depends on the system but you IMO have to calculate/measure relativistic mass to calculate the exact total mass. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.6281.pdf

Ok but what about the backwards accelerating? Perhaps this a reference problem. There is no reason to think what we call negative mass is -. It can be just mass that behaves like it's negative. Negative effective mass. Bu this doesn't change the negative currency.

Ok, But why is the rubidium fluid not real negative mass?

George was a catholic priest. They believe in unproven things and it was obviously an important part of his life. I suppose they distrusted him:" someone that believes in unproven things can't be a good scientist". When his validity was proven I can imagine many people preferred a non religious posterboy. Now via the World Wide Web scientific 'discoveries' are spread trough the world of science. Many people still distrust religious scientist but many people don't and I don't think that matters when you read a paper via a websites. Hugh Ross for example is a Canadian astrophysicist and Christian apologist. In the time of Georges Lemaittre someone that studies both fields would not be taken seriously. The world wide web and other communicationmethods reduce the strength of the boundary between science and religion. I don't think the reconciling of science and religion is necessary. And what about all the Christians and Moslims that don't do that?

Why do you ask that?

"Push it, and unlike every physical object in the world we know, it doesn't accelerate in the direction it was pushed. It accelerates backwards" Is this not true then? What MigL said is very unscientific. A scientist should not say negative currency doesn't exist...someone with a scientific mindset would say we have no evidence for it's existence.

One of my best friends originated from Mexico and is making a thesis in Leuven (Belgium) about how info can be sent faster via satellites. When he types a paper then it's posted on websites which cause his work to be tested by many people , regardless of his scientific or religious background. Because of our modern society I don't think their will be any improvements if they are reconciled.

Yes. you said: "It is pretty obvious that much of it is not intended literally. Even if, say, the creation story was believed to be realistic initially(*) anyone know (and for the last few hundred years, if not longer) knows that it is not literally true. " "Of course I have. And nearly all theologians (the relevant subject matter experts) would say they are misguided. " my answer: "True but it doesn't really matter what seems obvious to you or what theologians think...it does not change the amount of people that take the OT literal. " Is that not a relevant answer to what you said?

I said you can't willfully reconcile science and religion...you can't force people to accept other worldviews. Due to our modern society, reconciling of science and religion is not necessary. The way Georges Lemaitre was treated would not happen if he made scientific discoveries in this 'modern time'.

Many Christians and Moslims seriously dislike homosexuals/atheists/apostates...so you acknowledge Islam and Christianity can mess up your moral compass which inhibits a normal moral evolution. A real Christian or Moslim can't just take the good verses literal and ignore the bad stuff. There is a big difference. Bad science stuff concern wrong interpretations which will disappear from the world of science (if they are disproven or can't be proven) and no longer will be taught to people...there is no science bible, science changes continuously. Bad bible stuff stays in the bible, regardless whether it's taught or not. True but it doesn't really matter what seems obvious to you or what theologians think...it does not change the amount of people that take the OT literal.

Ok but bad bible-stuff is often taught to people....it doesn't matter what theologians think. That's your rule of thumb. But you are an atheist.

Then relativistic mass doesn't exist?

That's very correct but you can't know which is metaphor and which is literal.

This again. Why isn't the bible meant to be taken literally? Which words are meant to be taken literal and which not? Have you never heard of young earth creationists (not only Christians) and all those people that don't believe abiogenesis and believe in a guided evolution? And what do religious scientists do to reconcile science and religion?

Birds are above you, looking down!

Why do people call it intelligent design? Why not just 'design'?

You can only reconcile science and religion if religion doesn't deny science. This makes it for many religions impossible to reconcile with science. For the religions that don't deny science...how are you going to reconcile them? Are you going to make it a subject at school? I don't think you can willfully reconcile science and religion.

How can you reconcile science and religion? They are two different things. It's like reconciling apples and oranges.

Which games are you playing or are you going to play? I'm going to play Assassin's Creed Empire. And I just heard on a YouTube video Bethesda might be making a Game of Thrones RPG.

This paper studies the relationship potential kinetic correlation energy. it shows that kinetic energy modifies correlation energy. It's called correlation kinetic energy.https://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0207/0207469.pdf

When an arrest doesn't lead to a conviction then I think you don't have to tell a potential employer about it.

Today I learned that people with a darker skin need more sun exposure then people with a whiter skin. Larger amounts of the pigment melanin in the epidermal layer result in darker skin and reduce the skin's ability to produce vitamin D from sunlight.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3356951/