Strange

Suspected by who? Please provide a reference. As spin does not appear in that equation it is obviously not related.

Here is an explanation for children, with pictures: https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-3/The-Doppler-Effect If that is too advanced, I can try and find something simpler. Because it happens with constant gravity. Another simple diagram: And a couple here for moving source and moving observers: https://www.bestchoice.net.nz/physics/870/p14943.htm

This is a report put together by hundreds of experts on the current state of the science and the potential impacts on the USA: Volume 1 (the science): https://science2017.globalchange.gov Volume 2 (impact assessment): https://nca2018.globalchange.gov If this were some sort of left-wing conspiracy, why didn't Trump stamp on this. Although, he would prefer it weren't published because it might cost him and his friends money. But, in the long run, it will cost a lot more if it is ignored.

A very cool animation of the black holes that created the first detected gravitational waves (a simulation, not an "artists impression")

! Moderator Note An off-topic hijack with a personal theory has been hidden. There is a thread in Speculations.

! Moderator Note An off-topic hijack with a personal theory has been hidden. There is a thread in Speculations.

And yet when citations are provided (eg. the papers referenced in the blog posts you despise) you ignore them and scream "bias", "activists", "blogs".

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please read the rules of the forum: 7. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. 10. Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking. There also specific rules for the Speculations forum. Make sure you have read them.

No one said it doesn't. But the reason you know that it gets things wrong is because other scientists investigating the same thing get different results. Within certain bounds, nearly all climate scientists have reached the same conclusion. We can therefore assume that the few outliers are the ones who have got the science wrong (especially after decades of repeated work). Skipping the libelous conspiracy theory nonsense... Perhaps that is because of the science. If scientists detected an Earth destroying meteor heading towards us would you dismiss their warnings because they had "become activists"?

Defining "religion" is notoriously difficult. It is usually one of the first exercises in a Religious Studies course. Coming up with a definition that includes everything most people would consider religion (e.g. Buddhism) but doesn't also include, say, football is almost impossible. I don't think Eise's attempt is too bad (if he will forgive me for that faint praise). Perhaps some people might prefer "spirituality" for his sense (3). Or just "a sense of something greater". These are, indisputably I would say, feelings identical to those whose beliefs are part of mainstream religion. Some people ascribe those feelings to an external god, others to "human spirit", others to an appreciation of "nature".

That is a good question. One of the many details omitted in this (impossible) scenario is the direction of movement (relative to what?) that causes Quiet's confusion. Is the lab supposed to moving in the same direction as the laser light? And hence "outrunning" it so it never reaches the far wall? Special relativity assumes the invariant speed of light because that is what Maxwell's equations show. So your thought experiment violates pretty much all known physics. But apart from that ... I think this is slightly, uhm... "dishonest"?. There is no film director. This is your idea. Why not just admit it? Either say, "I don't understand this aspect of SR" or "I have this alternative theory that contradicts SR". Trying to push the blame on to someone who doesn't exist (and therefore can't answer back) is not reasonable.

How do we decide which words to include in our children’s dictionaries? Read the whole thing here: https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2015/01/15/decide-words-include-childrens-dictionaries/ It is not the end of civilisation as we know it. Key message: "Dictionaries reflect the language as it is used"

Expansion can't really be described as a speed. The speed at which two points move apart is proportional to their separation. (Because expansion is a scaling effect). So if they are far enough apart then the speed of separation will be greater than c. We can see galaxies receding at more than the speed of light. But the speed of light is always the same, c. That is not what is being discussed

Inside the event horizon, in Schwarzschild coordinates, the radial direction becomes time-like so the (notional) singularity is in your future. Which is another way of understanding why everything ends up in the centre.

I can't imagine why you think it wouldn't. As we are always in motion (relative to something, but also stationary relative to something else) the experiment is done every time light is used. It seems you think there is some sense in which something can be "really" or absolutely stationary. Galileo showed this I is wrong. Experiments like Michelson-Morley show it is wrong. Mathematics like Noetger's theorem show it is wrong. Thousands of experiments have attempted to detect this sort of Lorentz violation, to incredible levels of accuracy. Then your details are wrong. Why don't you tell us what they are and we may be able to explain where you are going wrong.

Why is that relevant? As you have invented this scenario, why is the light not detected? Nothing you have said suggests that it would. But you seem to have omitted a lot of information. Is that deliberate? You don’t even need Einstein for this. It goes back to Galileo (he used a ship not a lab). There is no difference between these. Again, Galileo not Maxwell said this first.

Why do you want it as a doc file? The complete text is there on the web page. (I have never attempted to open a pdf in Word; is it supposed to work? I will try it when I get home.)

Citation needed

Energy conservation is not (always) conserved in GR http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

Not at all. No there isn’t. Just Newtonian physics.

Nope. I didn’t say that we did. But the effects of CO2 were first noted over 100 years ago. Nope. The models have been tested and confirmed. That is why rational people accept the results of the science.

So use Pythagoras’ theorem to calculate the height of a geostationary orbit. You can’t can you.

There is a force between two stationary charges. No movement required.

This is not true. I assume you misunderstood what you read. I think it almost entirely incorrect in every detail.

This is wrong. Light always travels at the same speed. And there is no periphery of the universe.