Strange

It does. It just doesn't seem to have ever sunk into your head. Which is why you keep making the same baseless assertions over and over again, even after having had countless explanations as to why you are misusing terminology and misunderstand physics. EPR is a paper about an apparent paradox in quantum theory. It has nothing to do with spacetime in relativity. This make no sense. What is a MECO? What evidence is there that white holes exist?

Why?

And yet they do. (*) Apparently, you can't tell people what they should think! (*) I am not going to try and explain / justify why some Christians think capital punishment is OK ("an eye for an eye") but don't at the same time follow the food laws. But they do. Even if you think they can't.

I wonder sometimes if there are more atheists who see a contradiction between the bible and evolution. Most (all?) religious people don’t accept everything in the bible and don’t take everything literally. Even those who do take some parts literally have their reasons for rejecting other parts. To be honest, I suspect most don’t even think about very deeply.

Please show mathematically that this would result in an inverse square law of attraction. This mathematical proof should demonstrate two things: 1. That the force is always attractive and never repulsive. (If the net -ve charges are closer in both objects then you should have a net repulsive force. It will be interesting to see your mathematical proof that this is not the case.) 2. That the force follows an inverse square law. (As anyone who has studied basic physics knows this is not the case, it will be interesting to see your mathematical proof that this is not the case.) From you:

How would it be useful? Could they see it in planes in the air? Or even when they are on the ground? How big would this display need to be?

Why? Do you think the pilots don’t know what airline they work for?

You have yet to provide any evidence to support this opinion. Are you claiming that there is no evidence for the way genes operate? Or what exactly? Please explain why you think the Selfish Gene concept is incorrect.

It is not obvious that any science tells us anything about "reality" (whatever that is, if it even exists).

Hang on. Burden of proof. You are the one making the claim. It is up to you to support it. But, in addition to the above examples, what about killing people? That's wrong, isn't it? Always? Hmmm. But what about war? Is it OK to kill some people (soldiers) but not others? And is it OK to kill them with some weapons (bombs) but not others (chemicals)? And then what about capital punishment? Some people and some countries think it is just and moral, while others think it is unjust an immoral. I can hardly think of a single thing that is a moral absolute. Now, please make your case that moral laws are objective and never change. I hope you can support this with examples from multiple cultures over history.

But that is a different thing. You are moving the goalposts or changing the subject. They are religious and accept the theory of evolution. That was your original question. The fact that they try and use the science to rationalise their beliefs is irrelevant. Nonsense. That would only be true the "supernatural stuff" included contradictions of evolution. As the Church officially supports (*) and accepts the science, that can't be true. You are, in effect, saying that because they believe some supernatural things that they can't believe anything non-supernatural. That is completely illogical. You seem to be letting your dislike of religion cloud your thinking. Again. I'm not sure how that is relevant. There isn't really much connection between the two theories. But they are both accepted by most mainstream churches and by many religious people. So what. We know there are people who deny various scientific theories. Sometimes because of what they believe. Sometimes because they have come up with their own pet crackpot theory. But that is irrelevant to the question you asked. That is true of science but not scientists. Some Christians think like that and some don't. Again, not really relevant to the question you asked. Your question is, I think, answered. (The answer was "yes".) Is this now just going to turn into another irrational "Itoero Hates Religion" thread? If so, we can ask the mods to close it now.

You have been given three. (At least, I might have missed some.) But we are used to this. It is extremely common with people presenting personal theories. For example: Personal Theory Proponent: This is my theory ... Science Forum Members; No that won't work because (1) ... (2) ... and (3) ... PTP: So it seems no one can explain why my idea doesn't work. SFM: OK, let's try some more detail: <detailed mathematical analysis> and we can see this because <description of several experiments confirming standard physics and refuting PTP> PTP: As I thought, no one can prove me wrong, so I will say that it has been confirmed by SFM SFM: <Collective D'oh> OK. Another reason is that there is an asymmetry that means it can't work. For example, suppose you claim that the Sun has a net negative charge that attracts the net positive charge of the planets (remember, only opposite charges attract). That means all the planets should repel one another (because they all have the same charge that is attracted to the Sun). But we know that is not true because we can calculate the effect that the planets have on one another, and it is an attractive force. Similarly, if people are attracted to theEarth because they have opposite net electric charge, and the Moon is attracted by the same force then that means that when people landed on the Moon they would have been repelled by it rather than attracted. So, there you are. You have had (at least) four reasons why it can't work. And another one: you are suggesting a massive conspiracy among both scientists and amateur experimenters to hide the true nature of gravity. That doesn't seem very plausible.

I would not trust Urban Dictionary for anything other than an occasional laugh.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy I don't what you mean by space being too small. And what is "quantum mass"? What are "the original curvatures"? And why do you think they could only "house" photons? What does "to fit the quantum" mean? Quantum of what? And how big is it? Really? There is no gravity? Wow. Please don't post this drivel in the science sections of the forum.

It is totally unreasonable.

No. That wasn't the question.

What does "scalar 0" mean? What "linear arrays"? The Big Bang was not an explosion.

That makes no sense. That doesn't make much sense either. At different times, a point is itself? Huh? There can be two "nows", if by that you mean that two different observers can share the same frame of reference. Your language is so vague as to be meaningless. It is not clear what you are trying to propose. You need to provide a concrete, ideally mathematical, description. Not these ambiguous references to "points", "now", "itself", etc. I don't why "now" is in that sentence. Quantum mechanics describes things in terms of wave functions. They also have certain characteristics of particles. Note that quantum field theory is built on relativity, which, given the incredible accuracy of quantum theory, is yet more evidence that relativity is correct and you are wrong. That may be true (it is not clear what it means) but that "now" can be different for different observers.

That is because the "usual answers" (the ones based on science) work. Uninformed guesswork does not usually. I have seen no personal attacks. If you think there are you should report them to the mods. They are pretty strict about that sort of thing. This shows your profound ignorance of how science works. No one accepts anything because these mythical "high priests" tell them to. It is because the evidence shows that the theories are correct. We don't say we know how electromagnetism works "because Faraday said so". Anyone who studies physics does these same experiments and confirms that the theory is correct. Some are so simple that you could do them at home. The same is true of quantum theory or relativity. It is NOT because "Einstein said" but because multiple experiments have been done to test (ie to attempt to disprove) the theory. "Greater" as measured by who? Interestingly, there are cases where particles are created accord to one observer that are not there for another (see Unruh radiation, for example). No there doesn't. That's a good point: Why post your theories on a science forum if you don't want critical feedback? After all, that is how science progresses, by people attempting to destroy theories.

The trouble is, by deliberately choosing to remain ignorant, you are unable (a) to provide any support for your idea (or better still, trivially prom to yourself it doesn't work) and (b) to understand any explanations as to why you are wrong. You have cut yourself off from understanding. Again, this is just a symptom of your (wilful) ignorance. No one can help with that. You could (if you were interested) study the history of science to learn why these theories are accepted by science.But you won't of course. Did his unicorn survive?

There is no smallest unit of space. Photons have no mass. Why do you think photons are smaller than any other fundamental particle? Gibberish.

Sounds like something I might have heard some gnarly old dude in an old-timey Western say.

What evidence is there for the existence of what holes? (None) What evidence is there that they can decay? (None) What evidence, or theoretical basis, is there for this producing the Higgs field? (None) Note: Higgs (as in Peter Higgs) not Higg's. What does this mean? What edges? How is space "charged"? Why evidence is there that there is an edge, or centre, of space? (None) No. But congratulations on your imagination and interest in science. And welcome to the Forum.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/iffen

That has never worked for anyone else. But good luck. What do you mean by "UFP"? Using the standard definition, if it is unidentified how can you say anything about what makes it fly (if, indeed, it does)? And that is why you need to learn some basic physics. If you are not willing to do that, then this is fairly pointless because no one will be able to explain to you, in a way you will accept, that you are wrong. Can you quantify this effect? No? Would that be because you refuse to learn any basic physics and have decided to "leapfrog" straight to guesswork? Do you see the problem now?