Strange

See the (well referenced) Wikipedia article on Yahweh. I assumed everyone knew this. And the fact he used to be married!

Making up crap as you go might work in business (I doubt it is an optimal strategy) but is doomed to fail in science.

Stop hijacking threads with your crackpot ideas

A single particle that is not in a superposition of state will still be described by a wave function. Two particles that are entangled will be described by a single wave function (which is what entanglement means).

But despite your limited knowledge you think it is appropriate to make baseless and incorrect assertions with such confidence.

The wave function describes the state; and in the case of superposition it describes the superposition of states.

If you don't know, why did you say: "The wavelength is so small we ignore quantum effects"? And why are you now saying the opposite? Could it be that you don't know what you are talking about and are just posting the first thing that pops into your head?

So what are you basing "The wavelength is so small we ignore quantum effects" on? You can look up the mass of various types of black hole if that is relevant. You can read up on supernovas and what the necessary mass is to produce a black hole. In other words, you could do some research to back up your claims, instead of just making assertions.

What is the wavelength. The appropriate answer would be a number

1. You can say "if time dilation changes" but you would need so evidence that it does before building on that hypothesis. (Hint: it doesn't) 2. You can assert that it accounts for entanglement and tunnelling, but without a model your assertion doesn't;t have much value (especially as we already have an explanation). Again, this is just an assertion. You have not explained how the observer effect is relevant nor how it can lead to the conclusions you claim.

The majority have never thought the Earth is flat.

So you just want to give up because it looks complex?

The "approximation" without quantum effects doesn't work: it leads to singularities. But we want out math to usefully describe that physics. Making assertions with no evidence is not helpful.

The idea that yahweh was the creator is a relatively late idea, dating from when the Israelites became monotheistic (and so, having only one god, that god presumably had to also be the creator god). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

The problem with that is applying just GR to a black hole leads to singularities and infinities. Which means that the theory is no longer working - it is not producing realistic results. The assumption is that a quantum theory of gravity would explain what happens in the extreme conditions inside a black hole, near the event horizon and in the early universe. Just saying "we don't need one" doesn't address any of the problems.

what evidence do you have for this?

Just to make it look nice.

Ah, OK. That is because the program itself didn't generate any output until you added the print. It would be up to the environment (eg shell) to print the result of the function.

Unlike the nasty things you have said about atheists?

This page has a table of additives used in coloured glass: https://geology.com/articles/color-in-glass.shtml Looks like it could be iron or manganese oxides.

What makes you think atheists don't enjoy life, don't have hope and are not happy? That doesn't require one to believe in gods.

! Moderator Note Do not hijack other people's threads with your own personal theories.

IT DOESN"T: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman"

Works for me: Python 3.7.3 (default, Mar 30 2019, 03:37:43) [Clang 10.0.0 (clang-1000.11.45.5)] on darwin Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> def fun(x,y): ... return x+y ... >>> fun(1,2) 3 >>> Do you get any kind of error message?

Except that isn't what it says: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A13&version=NIV (This highlights one of the problems with relying on ancient texts as a source: there have been so many errors in transcription, editing and translation it can be hard to know what was meant.)