MigL

So Black Holes, and even neutron stars, objects with extreme gravitational fields, would shrink the most. Would this effect be evident for the massive Black Holes central to galaxies ? Would this affect the rotation rate of pulsars ?

As if the lizard people, mole people, and extraterrestrial aliens weren't bad enough ...

Apparently it even extends to face coverings, to this day, in Iran.

I don't recall any John Wayne movie where he said that. ( I believe it was Red Foreman ) Is that another misquote like the A Einstein one ?

Other than the 5 senses, any other kind of 'sensing' is usually a delusion of your own mind. Sometimes, delusions are a defensive mechanism that the mind uses to cope with harsh circumstances.

Except that relativity tells us you cannot always know which came first, as there is no preferred frame.

I have had many opinions borne of ignorance and faulty reasoning, which has been set straight by experts in their respective fields, on this very forum. We all come here to learn, and are all ignorant of one thing or another. Is your solution to call us all names, or educate us. Are we all bigots because we are ignorant of certain things ? I think calling someone a bigot is offensive; that is my opinion. And since, according to Zap, I'm ignorant of the definition ( even though I'm offended ), I must be, according to Dim, a bigot.

That is what I previously posted. I concede he is wrong in his reasoning, but believing people who, don't believe in God(s), think a certain way ( I'm one of them ) is not bigoted. That is my opinion; am I bigoted for thinking that group thinks that way ?

No problem whatsoever with Zap's thoughts and opinions; I have always valued them. Everyone's opinions should be ( ie. no thought police ), so we may discuss, and even attempt to change each other's minds about certain subjects. Labelling people with offensive terms, like 'bigot', makes them feel unsafe about sharing their ideas/opinions. Is that not the whole idea behind 'safe' spaces ? If you'd rather eliminate all views which don't agree with your own, you're not going to have much of a discussion. ( and I did give Zap a +1 for being respectful )

Because the probability distribution for the separated states was encoded in the common wave function shared by entangled particles. How many times does this probabilistic view have to be repeated, before you stop thinking classically ? In the mentioned experiment in Geneva, given a large enough separation, the question could arise as to which of the two particles' entangled states decoheres first ( SR considerations ). If the wave function does not encode states as probabilities, how do we know which particle is communicating/signalling/Qbitting ( or whatever you choose to call the interaction today ) with the other to ensure the observed anti-correlation ? Or are you fine with violating causality for macroscopic events ( observer experiments ) also ...

How are these 'fields' compactified, or localized to this 'central part' ? The QED fields, which manifest quantum particles, are not.

It is so hypocritical of Russia to blame western nations of supplying weapons to the Ukrainian resistance. The Russians themselves have apparently provided much more in terms of hastly abandoned tanks, artillery, etc. Let this be a lesson to all limp Dicktators. ( did you learn anything, Xi ? )

Response should be here, so we can discuss. Use PDFs as supporting evidence, please.

How is that relevant ? What if he had been carrying a paper, like NYT ? Or a doll ? Or walking a dog ? The only connection is in his ( deranged ) mind. You guys are trying to find sensical, causal structures in the thinking of a madman

Glad you showed some respect by calling me sir ...

Nice analysis by Markus on the previous page. On this off topic discussion ( I recommend splitting if possible ), energy, even rest energy, can be described as due to the configuration of the system, but not internal configuration ( as there is no internal aspect of elementary particles; if they had internal structure, they could be divided, and would not be fundamental ), rather the external configuration with respect to other fields, such as the Higgs, EM, color, and even space-time ( which gives rise to variable energies and masses in differing frames ). But back to the OP. I would appreciate a brief summary of your conjecture, Computer, so I don't have to slog through your lengthy post. Qed is best described as a perturbative theory of the quantized electrodynamic vacuum fields. And it does an excellent job of describing all phenomena involving charged particles. What does your theory add, or modify, to QED that is currently lacking, or in need of modification ? What new predictions does it make, and are any experimentally verified ( as is the case with current theory ) ?

You are straying dangerously close to 'conspiracy theories', INow. Sometimes we give China too much credit as to their capabilities and intentions. They seem to have their own problems. I don't know. Ask the people of Hong Kong.

To be fair, Doctor Derp said/implied that eople who think a certain way ... ( meaning atheist beliefs ) make zero effort ... Then proceeded to try and back up his assertions with faulty thinking. That makes him wrong, not a bigot against atheists. We are not the thought police here; make counter arguments, not 'labels' to stop discussion you don't agree with.

An interstellar spacecraft powered by ... chemical rockets ??? I guess that's what we know, so we make that association. now, if the description was a shiny metallic object falling out of a hole in the sky, I might think 'wormhole'. Which might be more plausible.

No wonder we have no more women on this forum. Everyone is less puerile when women are present. ( always wanted to use the word 'puerile' )

Thank goodness ! I thought I was gaining weight.

Do you have any reasoning to back up this imaginative conjecture ? Or is it just a WAG ?

I would think that if we draw a gravittional potential vs radial separation graph, we would get a curve asymptotic to the GP ( y axis ) and RS ( x axis ) of the 1/x type. Similarly, a dark energy plot on the same graph, would be a GP =CosmologicalConstant horizontal line ( y= Const ). Where the two plots cross, would be the radial separation where expansion becomes dominant and overwhelms gravity. ( disregarding any initial velocities/accelerations )

The 'model' facilitates calculations and predictions. Don't confuse the 'model' with 'reality'.

I remember 'Merchant of Venice' well. I was 'Antonio' in the stage play at my high school. Bet you didn't realize I was a Shakesperian actor ...