Strange

Maybe because halogens run hotter ?

That sounds plausible. I have taken a non-working (halogen) bulb out, looked at carefully and could see no fault with the filament. So I put it back and it started working. A few minutes later it failed permanently.

With this level of ignorance, it is not surprising that you have a hard time understanding things. There is no definite and absolute rest. That is fundamental to relativity. Motion (or rest) can only be defined relative to something else. Looks like you need to start from the beginning and understand the basic principles first.

Nonsense. Einstein's simple thought experiment just involves two observers: one on a train and one "stationary" on the platform. No impossible "all seeing eye". No rhombus. It seems you have given up wasting everyone's time trying to trash the Michelson-Morely experiment. And you are back to your basic inability to understand the simple concept of simultaneity (https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116999-what-if-einsteins-definition-of-simultaneity-is-incorrect/)

What does "characterised message" mean? Who or what is supposed to "taking responsibility"? Can a message take responsibility? (I don't think so) "Continued evolution" is not a sentence so it makes no sense. But if your are not talking about "our" (human?) evolution, whose evolution are you talking about? What is the "KC identity"? And how do you know they are unable to recognise an environment?

There is no evidence that the universe came into existence. We know it was hotter and denser 13.8 billons years ago but extrapolating beyond that with our current theories is impossible. Consider a two-dimensional analogy: the surface of the Earth is finite (about 500 million km2) but there is no boundary: if you set off in a straight line in any direction, you will end up back where you started.

What do you mean by "its direction"? What do you mean by "its condition"? What is "it" in the above? Do you actually write this stuff in English, or use some sort of automated translation?

I suspect that any negative effects of faith are only perceived by other people. For example, someone might consider it to be a negative effect of faith that a Jehovah's Witness can't have a life-saving blood transfusion. But the JW would not see this as negative, just a "fact of life". And, I suppose, a person of faith might go further and say that the negative effects only exist in the perception of the outsider.

That argument can be made about pretty much every aspect of physics. I think most physicists would agree that "virtual particles" are not particles. If you have nothing but an argument from incredulity, I think you should do as you said and stop posting. No one cares about your unsupported beliefs that science is wrong.

In what sense? Do you mean some sort of abstract mathematical space characterised by various dimensions that make up "personality"? Or what? I have no idea what that means. How do you define and measure the "value of space"? How do you define and measure the "value of condition"? Can you show that these values are always equal and opposite? What is the connection to biological selection? If it isn't measurable, then it isn't physics. (Which is what I expected.) What are you predicting? How do we test it quantitatively? I have no idea what those words mean when put together in that order. Which is kind of ironic.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please don't hijack mainstream science threads to post things like this.

There have been similar physiological experiments like this before (as Eise links to). I have a problem with the way it is sometimes presented; that the decision is made before we are aware of it somehow means that "we" didn't make the decision. Of course "we" did - who else could have made it. There are many occasions where the brain has to fool us (our conscious selves) about when things happen because processes in the brain or body take time. For example if you reach out to touch a cup of hot coffee, the visual stimulus reaches the brain in a few milliseconds while the touch sensation takes almost a second. Yet we perceive them happening at the same time. So the fact that deciding to do something (which, no doubt, requires large amounts of complex processing) does not become apparent to us for some time is not surprising. Maybe 11 seconds is surprising, though....

Well, if you can attach electrodes to it, you could try tapping it and observing the result on an oscilloscope. You might get a few cycles of voltage as it "rings" (like a tuning fork). I really don't know. In commercial crystals, the electrodes are bonded to the surface, but I don't know how. Designing the electronics for a quartz oscillator from scratch is quite complex, even with manufactured crystals. Getting it to oscillate reliably can be hard.

In principle, yes. But I'm not sure how practical it is. You would need to find out what the resonant frequency of the crystal is between two surfaces. You would need to make two electrons on those surfaces (vacuum deposition or electroplating, perhaps) Then build an oscillator circuit suitable for use with the crystal as a resonant element. From what I remember of oscillator design this would require capacitors to match the capacitance of the crystal (which might be tricky). Getting an oscillator to operate stably at the very low frequency of the crystal might be tricky.

But, as I say, you can't do that based on analogies. The only way you could show an inconsistency would be to analyse the mathematical approach taken and show that it had errors. And, as I say, many people are taking different approaches to apply quantum theory to the curved-spacetime around a black hole. I don't know enough about that area of research to say whether they all end up with Hawking radiation or not. But that might be the sort of thing you want to read up on.

I posted a couple of links to articles that attempt to provide more accurate descriptions of how the math works. Hawking's original paper is actually quite readable from what I remember (haven't looked at for many years). Well, it is obvious you believe GR is wrong, but in that case you don't believe that Hawking radiation can exist so why bother asking about the mechanism? Seems a bit pointless. The fact that people here are not able to convince you that these analogies are vaguely plausible certainly isn't evidence against GR. But as you are unable to show any evidence that GR is wrong your personal beliefs don't really belong n a science forum. Of course, it may turn out that event horizons don't exist (or at least not in the way that is currently thought) when we eventually have a theory of quantum gravity. Many people are working on such ideas. Hawking himself published a brief paper suggesting that event horizons might be "porous" because of quantum effects. It will be very exciting to see how it turns out. But I am not placing place much hope in the personal beliefs of random non-experts on the Internet.

Yes. But also irrelevant to the point being made. (I tend to think the positives outweigh the negatives, but I don't have any evidence for that!)

Not everything in relativity is relative. For example, the speed of light is the same for all observers (invariant). Similarly, the event horizon is invariant. All observers (including someone in free fall) will say that the EH is in the same place. Therefore as you fall towards a black hole at some point you will pass through the event horizon (and will no longer be causally connected to the outside universe). Other invariant attributes are the mass, charge and angular momentum.

I assume you are just thinking of something like Coulombs law (that electric force falls off as the square of distance). Maxwell's equations are more complete and include the fact that changes propagate at c. In fact, this was one thing that made people realise that light was electromagnetic radiation. Similarly, Newton's equation for gravity (which looks very similar to the equation for electric charge) does not include speed but the more complete equations (Einstein's Field Equations) do describe the fact that gravity propagates at c. No. You showed your lack of knowledge of physics.

To understand the details, you need to look at the math. Otherwise you have to accept the various analogies as crude sketches of what is going on.

I agree. But naitche was trying to say that faith is "supported by physics". If that were so, then it would be possible to measure and model faith, make predictions, etc. In my lifetime: plate tectonics, confirmation of the Big Bang model, gene sequencing In the last century or so: quantum theory, relativity, and so many others one could write a book...

The detail requires things like the Bogoliubov transformation to define quantum theory on a curved spacetime

Here is an attempt to explain what the math actually describes: http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html It seems to build down to the fact that different frames of reference will calculate the energy of the quantum vacuum differently. So if you compare the energy seen by a notional observer an infinite distance away with another observer before the black hole formed, you can calculate a difference that corresponds to Hawking radiation. Another (more readable) overview here: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/12/hawking-radiation-is-not-produced-at.html She also draws the analogy with Unruh radiation: the fact that an accelerating observer should see energetic particles arising from the quantum vacuum. (Note that someone free-falling into a black hole would not see any Hawking radiation)

So the "pair production" is a very simplified analogy. I have seen a better description terms of positive and negative energy (which, I believe, more accurately represents what the math says) but I haven't been able to find it again. But if we stick with the virtual pair explanation, one way of thinking about this is the energy bookkeeping required. For the two particles to be separated, they have to be given energy equivalent to the mass of the two particles in order to convert them to "real" particles. One of the particles falls into the black hole, returning that mass-energy to the black hole. The other ne escapes taking that mass-energy with it. That just moves the question to: "where does the energy come from to make the particles real?" From the black hole's gravitational field. As far as I know, the only way of understanding the details of that is to get into the (very complex) math involved. Another way of thinking about it: the virtual particle pair have net zero energy, so you can think of one having positive energy and one having negative energy. As particles with negative energy don't exist, the one that escapes must have positive energy and the one that falls in subtracts energy (mass) from the BH. There are also explanations in terms of particles escaping the event horizon by quantum tunnelling.

Get a room, as they say.