Strange

I was quite surprised to hear a senior American diplomat say of someone, in a fairly formal context, that "they don't know from Shinola". I guess that has lost its scatalogical origins.

It may be published but that doesn't mean it is correct. It is based on an assumption about antimatter that has not yet been tested (although so far results are against it). It also depends on some unknown mechanism for hiding large quantities of antimatter. It definitely was not an explosion. We can be sure of that.

For completeness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Lobachevsky The same ideas were also (independently) developed by Gauss and Bolyai. It was in the air at the time, I guess.

I didn't quite understand that. Angular momentum is proportional to mass (and radius), so maybe that is all he is referring to. But it almost sounds like he is saying that they can be directly equated

I don't think there is a direct relationship between mass and angular momentum. I assume the angular momentum would be increased if the mass was orbiting in the same direction as the rotation (which in most cases, it would be). But I assume it could also reduce the angular momentum if it was going the other way. And as mass increases the radius, I'm not sure what the net effect on angular velocity would be...

That also sounds contradictory: they can't get past the consensus but frequently they do. (And it has happened several times in my lifetime). But lets not take this any further off topic.

Quite. I'm not sure why some religious people think it does.

But: So you are contradicting yourself again. Wrong way round. The expansion came first (derived from GR by, among others, Lemaitre who was a physicist and RC priest). The fact that galaxies are moving apart from one another was the initial evidence for that expansion.

That sounds weird to me. Maybe I will have to try and work through more of the paper.

This is huge! This changes everything! Wombat poop: Scientists reveal mystery behind cube-shaped droppings https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-46258616

But: You are contradicting yourself. The big bang model is a model that describes a universe that is expanding and, hence, can be traced back to an early hot, dense state. So is the the early hot, dense state that you disagree with? But the evidence is there for that. That is why it is part of the model. Is there any evidence for matter arising from nothing? I don't think so. (This was one of the ideas behind Hoyle's quasi-steady state model and there was no evidence for it then.) Note that Jordan also thought that the Earth is expanding, so I wouldn't take all of his ideas too seriously. You had better drop that line of discussion, unless you want to start a new thread in Speculations and provide evidence.

Just copy and paste. I think I did it on my phone as well, which is always a bit fiddly. In case you are having problems, here you go: The present vector theory of gravity is based on four postulates: 1. Background geometry of the Universe is a fixed four dimensional Euclidean space with metric (1, 1, 1, 1). Such space is completely isotropic and has no preferred directions. 2. In the four dimensional Euclidean space there is a dynamical 4-vector field Ak (the gravitational field) which breaks the symmetry. Namely, direction of Ak is now preferred and this direction becomes the time coordinate. Directions perpendicular to Ak are three spatial coordinates. 3. Vector gravitational field is coupled to matter and all nongravitational fields through the equivalent metric fik which is an algebraic function of Ak and the background Euclidean metric . Gravitational field couples universally and minimally to all the fields of the Standard Model by replacing everywhere the Minkowski metric with the equivalent metric and replacing partial derivatives with covariant derivatives formed from fik. In particular, the trajectories of freely falling bodies are geodesics of the equivalent metric . Action for a point particle with mass m moving in the gravitational field reads where c is the speed of light. Action (7) has the same form as in general relativity, however, the tensor gravitational field gik of general relativity is now replaced with the equivalent metric fik. One should note that the Einstein equivalence principle is a consequence of the action (7). 4. The quantum of the vector field Ak (the graviton) is not an elementary particle, but rather it is a composite particle formed of massless fermion–antifermion pairs. Emission and absorption of a graviton corresponds to creation and annihilation of particle–antiparticle pairs.

They do have momentum. The momentum of a photon is given by [math]\frac h \lambda[/math]. Where h is Planck's constant and [math]\lambda[/math] is the wavelength: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties

Particles have both linear and angular momentum. (And, in the classical model, electromagnetic waves have momentum.) It is not really a particle. That is just an analogy to describe some of its properties (mainly the fact that a photon is indivisible).

I am assuming this is the only part of that post that was yours (it doesn't look like it came from the definition of "believe" ) it would be interesting to know which parts of the evidence for the expanding universe you doubt: cosmological red-shift? Or the CMB? Or what? And to tie this in with the topic of the thread (so the other mods don't get mad at me!) can you explain why either of those conflicts with your belief in god? And the only scientific alternative to the expanding universe, that I am aware of, are the various static or quasi-static models of an eternal universe proposed by Hoyle et al. But, apart from being falsified, those models would seem to conflict with your theology more than an expanding universe does. So what model of the universe do you prefer and why? (Hopefully we can keep this polite and on-topic ....)

It is as relevant as it has always been.

I don't see why you think it is preaching. (Not every mention of god is preaching). It is just pointing out the inevitability of evolution, given the nature of the word we live in. (That world was, according your belief system, created by a god; so I don't think you should dismiss the fantastic things and processes that exist in that world.)

It can be described in two ways: either as a wave of electric and magnetic fields (the classical view) or as a quantum of electromagnetism, ie. a photon, in quantum theory. A photon is not really a particle, but it behaves in some ways like one. Neither is it a wave, but it behaves in some ways as if it were.

As there is nothing material spinning it is not obvious that the speed of light limit would apply. (it may be bette to think of the angular momentum as being intrinsic, rather like elementary particles.) But I think there is an upper limit. And, from what I remember, it does mean that the surface velocity (if there were such a thing) would be less than the speed of light. (Just seen your later post that confirms this. Phew!) I'm not sure how it could be measured. Frame dragging effect, maybe? Or, more likely, by measuring the oblateness of the even horizon (if you could image it).

Good point. In previous versions of this argument I have also included "a source of new variation" as another requirement. I'm not sure I see much benefit in conflating the two; they happen on such different scales, rely on different mechanisms, with different levels of complexity. Of course, ultimately everything is just physics. But trying to explain the function of an MPEG player in terms of electron-hole mobility in semiconductors probably isn't useful. It doesn't say that, as far as I can see. It uses "ape" as a shorthand for "non-human ape". It says: "Both humans and apes belong to a group of primates known as the Hominoidea." Hominoidea: "Apes (Hominoidea) are a branch of Old World tailless anthropoid primates native to Africa and Southeast Asia. ... There are two extant branches of the superfamily Hominoidea: the gibbons, or lesser apes; and the hominids, or great apes. ... The family Hominidae (hominids), the great apes, includes three extant species of orangutans and their subspecies, two extant species of gorillas and their subspecies, two extant species of chimpanzees and their subspecies, and one extant species of humans in a single extant subspecies." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape But whether humans are grouped with apes or not doesn't rally make any difference. As the article points out, we have a common ancestor. I don't think "believe" is really appropriate to either of these. One can accept the scientific evidence or reject it. I suspect that only rejecting it counts as a belief/faith based act.

My understanding is that he pretty much lost his faith after the death of his daughter I can't really see why there would be any conflict there. The evolution of the universe is just physics (and later chemistry) and some of it is just basic stuff like thermodynamics.

Evolution depends on three things: Variation in a population Those variations being heritable The variations having a differential effect on survival and reproductive success We know (from fairly trivial observation) that all three exist. And we also now know the mechanism. So it would actually take divine intervention to stop evolution happening

! Moderator Note Not sure why this thread is still open but as it is attracting nonsense like this it is now closed

I doubt we can, and why would we? If there were an advantage to eliminating sleep then I assume evolution would have found a way to do it. It appears to be a necessary part of the way the brain works. Mainly carbohydrates and fats.

No it isn't. C is the offspring of, you guessed it, B. Which in turn derived from BCPL. Which was influenced by algol. And there are a great many other languages that owe nothing to C (lisp, Cobol, ML...)