Strange

I don't believe you. That is not logical. The fact we complain about something doesn't make it objectively wrong. It just means we believe to be wrong.

There may be contexts where it is not considered wrong. For example, if the child is suffering terribly from injury or disease.

It is not objective because different cultures and times have different beliefs about what is right and wrong.

That is a deep philosophical question that people argue about endlessly. Fact, like truth, is a very slippery and dangerous concept. I would not use "fact" to refer to evidence. For example, once upon a time it was thought that all swans were white. Every swan that anyone had ever seen was white. People had known about swans for thousands of years. There was no reason to think that swans came in any other colour. So it was a generally accepted "fact" that "swans are white". Until people went to Australia and found out that there are black swans. So the "fact" is no longer a "fact". But it was never an opinion, either. Because it was based on the best available evidence at the time. So, in scientific terms, it was a theory. Now the theory has been updated to say that "swans are either white or black". If we ever find a pink swan, then the theory will be updated again. That is how science works. No. It was a hypothesis. It was based on the evidence available at the time. Science does not deal with facts or opinions.

It was a hypothesis. Science doesn't really deal in opinions or facts.

There is a model called "eternal inflation" that proposes something like this. That "big bangs" are happening continuously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation But obviously, your suggestion makes no sense. We know the universe started off in a hot dense state and has cooled over billions of years. You can't repeat that in a billionth of a second. That is nonsensical.

Ah. So Google obviously thinks that studiot needs or wants a bible.

I would assume that if there is no contract but the healthcare team decided to operate anyway, it would be considered a pro bono act. You can't impose a contract on the patient afterwards. No contract, no need to pay.

I am curious why you are discussing your paper about relativity in regard to the Collatz Conjecture. I wonder if you would be able to explain this please.

It is entirely possible that new science can change our view. After all, it has changed it once (from "big bounce" to "heat death"). Isaac Asimov wrote a short story about this a few years ago: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

I think he means that the guardian would be compelled to ay from the patient's funds. As this is a private setting, it also depends on the contract between the patient and the healthcare provider

I think you have answered the question. Does it? The genius of Google advertising. Although you would think the algorithms would be smart enough to realise that the site is populated by people who don't want a bible.

Do you have any EVIDENCE that it doesn't? Not evidence. Not evidence. Not evidence. Not evidence. Not evidence. Definitely not evidence. OK. So you have no evidence, just your faith. Reported. I have to assume you don't know what the word "evidence" means.

Asfar as we can tell. Eternal but dead.

Time can't cease to exist. But the universe would become increasingly cold. It would consist of cold, dead planets orbiting cold, dead stars. There is a podcast interview with the cosmologist Kate Mack about the subject here: http://titaniumphysicists.brachiolopemedia.com/2018/09/09/episode-78-the-heat-death-of-the-universe-with-ken-liu/

Yes. Assuming that you mean that the light is polarised at the source, rather than at the slits. In fact, I think light will only interfere with light of the same polarisation.

No. I am asking YOU to support YOUR claim that there is no such thing. It would do, if I claimed it does. I am not making any such claim. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If you do not provide evidence in the next post I will report you for soapboxing (and trolling).

They do predict several possible outcomes. we can't know if these are accurate or not. It used to be thought that the expansion would gradually slow down (because of gravity) and then the universe would start to collapse again. Perhaps resulting in a "Big Bounce" and starting a new universe. However the discovery that the rate of expansion has started accelerating makes that less likely so the most generally accepted prediction is that the universe will continue expanding and that in the far distant future we will so no other galaxies beyond our own. Much further out than that, all the stars will die (run out of fuel) and everything will cool to the same temperature resulting in what is known as the "heat death" of the universe.

It is exactly the same in both cases. The Earth is falling towards the Sun (but never gets closer because it is moving sideways). You are falling towards the Earth (but are stopped by the ground). In both cases, the apparent force is caused by the curvature of spacetime. The best analogy I know is: Imagine two people who are a mile apart and walking in the same direction, North for example. You would expect them to stay the same distance apart unless some sort of force pushed them together. And if they were on a flat surface, that would be true. But lets say they are on the surface of the Earth, a few miles from the North Pole. They are still both heading north but they get closer together as they approach the the North Pole. This is not because anything is pushing them together but just because of the geometry of the curved surface. (In this analogy, the lines of longitude are 'time' and so the North Pole is in the walkers' future)

You already have a thread to discuss this paper. After repeatedly asking people to comment, you ignored it. Why? And why bring it up again here. (I’ll report it to the mods for you). Also you said that your friend’s brother wrote it. Now you are claiming you wrote it. Why? How much did you pay them to publish this without reviewing it? Now that we have established that you haven’t presented your proof, will you do so now please.

Although the question is ill defined (or perhaps because it is) it has evoked a great variety of interesting answers.

They both mass and angular momentum. Thats about it, I think.

Evidence please. Evidence? This is a new baseless claim.

Then all you need to do is produce a mathematical model based on that. The mathematics of special relativity is very, very simple. The most complicated thing in it is a square root. Presumably your model should be equally simple.

You have posted the same crap multiple times before. You refuse to engage. You do know this is a discussion forum?