Strange

The mass, and all the energy being released from fusion reactions (which ultimately is just the mass in a different form) all contribute to the mass, and hence she of the black hole. Interestingly, because the temperature of Hawking radiation is inversely proportional to the size, the black hole will get cooler!

This experiment has nothing to do with sunlight. This was a classical experiment, measuring the speed of electromagnetic radiation. Photons were not even known about. Not that I can see why that would make any difference. I assume any such delay caused by the absorption and reemission of the photon would be (a) very small and (b) constant; ie. independent of the state of motion of the apparatus. Perhaps you could show some calculations to support your argument? Note that you are querying one very old (it was done long before SR was published) and not hugely accurate experiment. You also need to explain why every other observation and experiment is consistent with SR if SR is wrong. ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please not the rules of this section of the forum, especially the need for evidence to support your claims.

Semantics, yes: the meaning of terms is important. Quantum teleportation is not the same thing as Star-Trek style teleportation. Scaling it up would not change that. No one will ever square a circle or trisect an angle (using only a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge). It is impossible. No one will ever find the final digit of pi, because it is impossible. (Just trying to drag this vaguely back on topic) Also, just because some things that were thought to be impossible were later achieved doesn't mean that everything is possible. Some things may always be impossible.

I bet you would find it a bit harder to post a list of things that mathematicians had proved impossible but were later found not to be. (I wouldn't be surprised if there were one or two, but I am not aware of any.)

I think it is a terrible analogy! They would probably not keep the same time. They would be in different gravity and, possibly, moving relative to one another. It's not so much about the math but the evidence. We can measure this effect in many ways. We even use it in various technologies.

Absolutely. I seem to remember a nice animation in another thread, which showed this. I don't know if I will be able to find it again though! Here it is. A blue wave and a green wave have a changing phase relationship. The result is the red wave. When they are in phase, the red wave is twice as large, when they are out of phase, the red wave is zero: Form here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_interference

Does this diagram help: When the waves have the same phase (in phase) they add together. When they have the opposite phase then the effectively subtract (because one is positive while the other is negative). Form here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/interf.html Yes, that is correct: destructive interference results in a wave of zero amplitude. Constructive interference would result in a wave with twice the amplitude.

Well, it has different definitions depending on the context. The one most relevant to this discussion would seem to be that it is another dimension akin to the three spatial dimensions (as in GR, general relativity). But as there is no known mechanism for time travel (apart from our relentless progress towards the future) you can choose to think it is impossible or make up some Sci-Fi rules for it. So I am not sure what you mean when you refer to "anything that proves time travel", because there isn't any such proof.

Don't get your hopes too high! Astrophysicist Katie Mack has a short Twitter thread on this. She warns: Also, the intention is to actually image the event horizon itself, rather than the accretion disk:

Information about the book in question here: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674972070

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum. Not a place to advertise your blog. If you want to discuss the book, then do it here.

That would be destructive interference. Constructive interference is when the phases of the two waves add together to give an amplitude that is greater than either one (up to a maximum of the sum of both). In destructive inferences, the waves have (to some extent) opposite phases and so the amplitudes subtract giving a lower (possibly zero) amplitude.

When I search for information on "quantised red shifts" I find results showing it has been falsified. Is that what you hoped for? Interesting. Especially as I was pointing out that you were wrong.

That is not what your diagram shows. You would need to make the positively-charged area have a negative charge to repel the electrons. I' also not sure what your source of electrons is supposed to be...

And perhaps, as that nice graphic suggests, from a early shared human culture before people spread out throughout the world.

I think it is fairly obvious that religious diversity exists for the same reason that language diversity does: they are human creations and have evolved in different cultural environments. This is true for many aspects of human culture (art, music, etc). There are, however, commonalities between these because they all arise from the human brain.

The electrons won't provide any thrust. That would like being inside a truck (with the brakes off) and throwing bricks against the end wall in the hope it would move the truck. It won't, obviously. You need to eject the electrons (or something) as the exhaust in order to generate thrust. Electrons have very little mass, so won't give much thrust (unless you can accelerate them to very high velocities).

So you are backing up your unsupported claim with another unsupported claim? Please provide some independent (ie non-biblical) and contemporary sources describing Jesus's life and work. I would be amazed. Perhaps you should provide some evidence for this? I know you are used to just believing things for no reason, but some of us prefer to have some evidence. Anyone can claim things like that. Nowadays, they would probably end up in a secure institution. The claims made in a work of fiction are vindicated by further claims in the same work of fiction? I don't think so. And, they would say exactly the same about their worldview. You should look up the fallacy of "begging the question" because that is what you are engaging in, here. Not surprisingly, almost every description of this logical fallacy use religion as an example. "I know I am right because the bible says so" "How do you know the bible is right?" "Because it is the word of god" "How do you know it is the word of god? "Because it says so in the bible" You need to get over yourself. You are just as deluded as they are. 1. You have yet to establish that the gospels are historically accurate 2. These people were writing long after the events described in the gospels. Anything they wrote about Jesus was just based on what was in the gospels. You need to find a credible primary source.

That was a 2D analogy for 3D space. The surface of a balloon has a finite area and can expand without limit (bearing in mind this is an analogy so it isn’t going to burst!)

It is your responsibility to provide the information.

Have you ever heard of the concept of summarising key points, with reference to a longer document for more details?

There. is no "beyond". There is (according to current models) no limit or boundary of space. Space is either infinite (so you would just keep going forever) or it is finite but unbounded (so would end up back where you started).

It does. And this has been confirmed by the detection of gravitational waves.

What beginning? What new discovery?

I don’t believe that is the case. Exactly (I have seen some plausible arguments that ”real” AI and consciousness might be possible. I have never seen a good argument that it is impossible.) Also, I’m not sure what the practical advantage of creating a machine with human-like intelligence and consciousness would be. Current AI and machine-learning systems are capable of things humans aren’t simply because they work in a completely different way. But a “real” intelligence? ”HAL calculate the flight parameters to the next destination” ”Really, Dave? Really? Haven’t you learned how to do it yourself yet? I’m sick of doing that every day. I’m taking a break to read some novels. Ask me again next month if you are still stuck.”