Strange

I don’t see how “nothing” can be unstable, there wouldn’t be anything to be unstable. And I am not going to listen to an entire (stupid sounding) audiobook to see if it makes any sense. Why is there something? Because there is. Because if there weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to ask the question. This is not a question science can answer. It is one for philosophy or religion (but they can only answer by making something up).

Good point. I saw something about this earlier. I’ll look into it again...

There are models where dark matter particles decay (and/or annihilate) and experiments have tried to detect the expected radiation from this. So far unsuccessfully. So maybe it doesn't decay. Or so rarely that the signal is too weak to detect. Apart from how much is there and where is it!

Today I learned what happens if you glue two Mobius strips together and then cut them down the middle. You may be surprised... There is an interview Tokieda here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/tadashi-tokieda-collects-math-and-physics-surprises-20181127/ He is an interesting guy. He taught himself maths from a book he found in the library. Only the book was in Russian, so first he had to learn Russian....

As there is no evidence go gods, then religion is not based on reality. But I agree it is based on the logic of man, because man invented gods and religion. It isn't logic. It is just what you believe. As there are lots of religions with multiple gods, it is obvious your are wrong. I think you mean ALL religions are man-made and are built on some baseless suppositions. That isn't what evolution says should happen. But feel free to keep making ignorant statements like this. It just demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about. If you think evolution is a meaningless idea, how do you think that domesticated animals and crops happened? We know evolution happens: we can see it happening. Only the ignorant and gullible think that. That is a really ridiculous and illogical argument. Just because robots are designed doesn't mean that everything is designed. It is as stupid as saying that because I can make air move by blowing, all winds must be created by people blowing air.

Doesn't that mean that the idea of god could evolve again, if a group of people started out with no concept of god? So I think your "no" should be a "yes"

No, that's the wrong way round. There is no reason that anyone would believe in gods unless they had an experience (being indoctrinated by their parents for example) that made them believe. If it can mean whatever the reader wants, then it doesn't really mean anything. The difference is that science is based on evidence and can be tested. While your bible is just a collection of stories made up by people a long time ago. I know which I would trust.

It would be pretty exciting if any of those were stable enough to be useful...

True. (And many isotopes below uranium.) But I was really thinking of the "1000s of undiscovered periodic elements."

! Moderator Note I have given this the benefit of the doubt and moved it to the Speculations forum. (There is so little of any credibility here, I think it belongs in Trash, but let's see what happens.) Please see the rules for this part of the forum; in particular the need to provide evidence for your claims. Why do you think this is possible? No. We know that any elements above uranium are unstable. Maybe you should find out, instead of guessing. The Sun, for example, generates its energy from nuclear fusion.

Famously (and tangentially again) Lemaitre and Hoyle were very close friends. I'm sure they had some "interesting" conversations about their different views of cosmology. (Of course, for a long time there was not overwhelming evidence on either side.)

More generally, some classes of non-newtonian fluids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid

GIYF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover It doesn't have much to do with the discussion (the clue is in the word "tangential"). So you object when swansont points out that there are still anti-relativity cranks even though you previously said, effectively, that there are still anti-relativity cranks: (Also, swansont did not "characterise" cranks, he just said that they exist.)

If his objections were philosophical, then they probably aren't relevant. If he had shown an error in the mathematics of GR (and it seems likely he would have been capable of doing that) then that would be a different matter. As there was not then (and still isn't) any evidence to show that the theory is wrong but there was evidence that was consistent with the theory, I can only guess that most were, like Lasker, motivated by some sort of "aesthetic" dislike of the theory. Just noticed that Wikipedia has a summary of this work. There were 47 authors. Only one was a physicist. Some were Jewish. Many apparently didn't really understand the theory they were criticising (sounds familiar!): Hans Reichenbach described the book as an "accumulation of naive errors", and as "unintentionally funny". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity#A_Hundred_Authors_Against_Einstein

Then your god should not punish people for making a choice. It seems that your god wants to take credit for anything good but blames people for everything bad. This makes your god an arrogant hypocrite. There are plenty of religions with multiple gods. They have not destroyed the universe. So you are clearly mistaken. No one designed it. The fact that you don't know anything about evolution is not evidence for gods, it is just evidence of your ignorance. So you are saying that there used to be multiple gods, but your god killed all the others? But, of course, you are wrong because in regions with multiple gods, it is not true that every god claimed to be the "higher creator". You are just making stuff up to support your beliefs.

I'm not sure I see much difference between those characterisations, to be honest. It is partly knowledge / understanding for its own sake. But it is also the technological possibilities enabled by that knowledge. I think the future will be really exciting. (As was the past and the present!) I am quite happy to leave others, smarter than me, to ask the questions. And answer them. And then explain them in a way I can understand!

How do you know that? What if they were lying to you. Sounds like the worst kind of dictatorship, where people are too afraid to express their views. Your god gave you free will. It would be hypocritical of it to punish you for then making your own choices. It would be like The President saying, "Of course you can vote for the opposition party in the elections. But I will kill you and all your family if you do." It sounds like your god should be tried for crimes against humanity. Which is why I would like to live forever: always more answers and therefore more questions!

! Moderator Note I think one thread for your rant against science was quite enough.

It means that the HUP is not caused by the measurement, but the observer effect could cause changes in the measured value. Maybe your reputation wouldn't keep dropping if you were willing to learn, instead of displaying your ignorance so confidently.

But it doesn't really explain QM (or anything). It just says, "things behave that way because the programmers want them to". It is like using gods as an "explanation"; it doesn't explain anything.

Exactly. (I don't really like any of them. ) But is the simulation hypothesis an interpretation of QM? If thought it was just a bit of pseudo-philosophical waffle indistinguishable from solipsism or "what if the universe was created 15 seconds ago but made to look 14 billion years old". Wikipedia has a longish list of interpretations. Simulation doesn't appear there.

I can't see where it suggests that. It explicitly says that they are not.

Yes. No. The relationship between the uncertainty of position and momentum is inherent. It is not caused be by the measurement. Nothing to do with the observer effect.

Sounds like you are trying to invent the microwave oven ... But I don't see where the cathode and anode come into it...

Nonsense. It has nothing to do with the observer effect. It is a characteristic of the things being measured, not the measurement. That has nothing to do with the HUP. Please stop repeating this ignorant nonsense. Go and learn about this stuff before you embarrass yourself further.