Strange

They certainly won't if you refuse to learn anything about what science says, and just make it up instead. On the other hand, you might get some answers from science (which is all we can ever hope for). I would be tempted to say, of course there is. But it depends (as so often with questions like this) on definitions. What do you mean by "physical"? Is music "physical"? Is art? Is love?

Actually, probably only millions but the point stands.

No one said that. Space-time is a concept from relativity. There is no single "now" in relativity or space-time. It depends on the observer. As relativity is based on the concept of spacetime, then any evidence for relativity is evidence for the concept of spacetime. What evidence do you have that relativity and/or spacetime are wrong? EVIDENCE?

That never happened. Maybe you would be less confused by what scientific theories say if you actually found out what they say. Read the Douglas Adams quote again. And again until you understand the point it is making. The reason that they are "the elements needed for life" is because life developed from the elements that existed. If the elements were different and had different properties, then a different form of life might have evolved. So you don't think we should try and understand anything. Fine. But that does mean that a science forum is not the best place for you. I would say it is exactly the opposite: it is bringing the vast and unimaginable down to a humanly comprehensible level. I'm sure you'll get no shortage of opinions!

Do you mean you want the time and date printed on the image? Some phones might support that (mine doesn't). Read the instruction manual. Or you might be able to get an app to add it to the image.

Thanks. I'll take a look at that. It might fill in some of the gaps ...

I am not claiming it is not (because there is no evidence either way). Why would it stop after 14 billion years? The radius of the observable universe currently about 45 billion light years. The universe is almost certainly many times larger than that. Nonsense That was certainly Newton’s argument for the universe being infinite. But the universe is expanding (and the rate of expansion is increasing) so there is no reason to think it will collapse.

None of these are unexplained or mysterious. What are you talking about? Frequency is measured in Hz or s-1, Planck's constant has units of m2 kg s-1 and so it can't be a frequency. I challenge you to provide a testable mathematical model. I challenge you to provide some evidence for this idea. I challenge you to demonstrate you know what you are talking about.

And your evidence for that is, what exactly?

They key word there is "methodological". In other words, this is description of the process of science, not the beliefs of scientists. Firstly, you are using "illogical" to mean "it doesn't make sense to me" rather than "not consistent with the laws of logic". I don't know what you mean by "accident". But part of the reason that life seems to be a good fit to the universe we exist in is because the "rules" of that universe (ie the chemistry and physics) allowed life like ours to evolve. That is not really "by accident" any more than the existence of stars generating energy from fusion, or the presence of mountains and rivers on Earth are "accidents". They are all almost inevitable consequences of the way physics works. I don't think the "fine-tuned" argument makes much sense. OK. One can ask "why is physics like that". There are all sorts of possible answers to that. Few, if any, of them are answerable by science. I suppose one answer is, "I don't know". Another is that if it weren't like that, we wouldn't be here to discuss it. Another is that a god or gods decided to make them like that. Another is that the universe itself has evolved (perhaps over multiple iterations) to a state where Or there're multiple universes all with slightly different properties (so there might be another one where "people"are asking if life could be based on carbon) Or maybe there is some fundamental reason why the laws of physics can't be any different Or we are living in a simulation created by aliens (who live in a universe with different properties .... but why is their universe like it is?) Or ... Take your pick. I'm not sure science can tell you the answer. Some people ere are scientists. Some are just interested. (Some are students, some are retired.) Some are quite vehemently anti-religion and some are religious. So you will get a variety of answers. So of the questions you ask are unanswerable (by logic or by science).

Good analogy but I would like to tweak it: where is the timekeeping if you hammer the clock to pieces

Not if you provide evidence. Because, to the rational, there is a big difference between things being correlated and thing being causes. Did you look at the Spurious Correlations link? Some of them are even funnier than you.

I am not denying there may be a correlation, what I am disputing is cause and effect. But from your link: So there is no simple correlation between religion and fertility rate. Guess what: it is more complicated than that.

Correlated to religion. (Maybe. If there is any such correlation.)

What evidence do you have that speed of the photon is not constant? Well, it is both constant and invariant. Whether Corpuscles knows the difference, or cares, is not clear. Why not? And why is it unpublished? Which journals has it been submitted to? (And reported for hijacking)

Good grief. (Maybe I shouldn't be surprised; there are so many things we take for granted and assume are common knowledge...) Well, there could be a third thing (or things) which are the cause of both the correlated factors. Or it could be coincidence. Or it could just be more complicated than that. I don't think I can do better than refer you to the excellent examples here: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations (and I bet they are all better correlated than religion vs birthrate)

I haven't really looked at the detail, but one of the commenters I heard on the radio made the following distinction: it is OK (not antisemitic) to criticise the Israeli government or individual Jews for their behaviour. But it is probably crossing the line if you start to claim that the entire concept of Zionism (ie that Israel can exist as a state) is wrong. And it seems to be that distinction (questioning the activities vs questioning the existence) that was not properly defined in the Labour Party policy.

Is it a basic law? Does it? Why? Does "something" include consciousness? Why? What sort of "thing" is consciousness? What is it made of? How do you know there is a conservation law for it? Does "something" include a heartbeat? If not, why not? If so, where does the heartbeat go if it can't become nothing? What about when a candle burns out? Is the flame "something? It is more visible and tangible than this thing called consciousness (which may not even exist). So where does the fallen go, if it can't become nothing? Maybe before you get all tired and emotional about the role of science and materialism, you should do an introductory course in philosophy, logic and critical thinking. It might help you get some of these vague ideas sorted out in your head. Why are any of us here?

In another thread (not worth reading) there was a link to this paper: https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced.pdf One of the interesting (fascinating, even) results of their study is that species are well defined by the mitochondrial DNA "barcode"; in other words the individuals within a species have one barcode, those in another have a different one and there is nothing in between. As one of the authors put it: "if individuals are stars, then species are galaxies". Although I can't see it in the paper (I have only skimmed it and much of it is over my head - without giving it more time than I have available!) it is claimed in interviews with the authors that this suggests that 90% of species arose in the last 100,000 years. For example: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html I haven't found any serious discussions of the conclusions (hence this thread). I'm not sure this is justified. Without some sort of mass extinction or bottleneck event, why would large numbers of new species arise? One of the authors suggests: https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/evolution/why-did-the-overwhelming-majority-of-species-in-existence-today-emerge-at-about-the-same-time/news-story/eb87b10a8c6f8bd3cfac0a50bd7bd7f0 But that doesn't seem to be consistent with the close grouping of DNA barcodes. An alternative might be that the single sequence they look at is highly conserved. After all, faults in the mitochondria can be highly destructive and the sequence they use may be critical to its operation (I have no idea if this is the case or not). And, presumably, those coming up with the idea of barcoding species would have chosen a stable sequence to use. Any other thoughts?

No. CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.

It is an insult to science to suggest that what seems plausible or improbably to you, personally, outweighs vast amounts of evidence, and the time and money spent to gather and understand said evidence. I have only skimmed the paper (it is long and much of it is over my head) but I can't see anything there that implies what you claim. It is the fact that science DOESN'T have all the answers and so there is always the possibility of paradigm-breaking new discoveries that makes science so exciting. (So we kind of agree, but apparently for different reasons.) (Whether this paper points the way to anything like that is another question: maybe it deserves its own thread...)

Nations don't coach, individuals do.

If they are stationary on the platform, then they will measure the same timing for the events as the other observer in the middle of the platform. If they are on the train, then they measure the same timing for the events as the other observer in the middle of the train. Note that the observers are only placed in the middle of the platform and the middle of the train because it makes the explanation easier; it makes no practical difference if they are nearer, or at, one end or the other. There are also practical issues with synchronising clocks at different locations: you either have to allow for the light travel time between them, or you have to move the clocks apart (which has relativistic effects). But I don't think that detail is relevant here. Reference frames are defined by relative velocity, so all the observers on the train are in the same reference frame.

The concept of "proof" doesn't really exist in science. Quantum mechanics doesn't really belong in there. (I don't know what panpsychism is, but I'm guessing it is nothing to do with physics.) That is not the reason that anecdotal evidence is, by itself, insufficient. Only a bigoted moron would believe such things. Fine. But "what makes sense to you" has little or nothing to do with science (or even materialisim). From a scientific standpoint, it would require objective evidence to be logical. (Not sure why it should be depressing, but whatever...) There is a huge variety of people and mindsets in the scientific community. There are religious people and atheists (of varying degrees). There are monotheists, polytheists and pantheists. There are theists and deists. There are materialists and idealists. The proportions might differ among scientists than the more general population, but the diversity is just as wide. That is a very dangerous approach. It is so easy to fool people (look at optical illusion and stage magicians, for example). The whole point of the scientific method is to avoid the various ways our sense can be fooled (and the sort of psychological biases we are prone to). Scientists certainly don't have all the answers, and they know it. Someone described science as the processes of being continuously wrong. There are a lot of people who know little of science, so that isn't too surprising. (Nothing special about that. There are a lot of people who know little about agriculture, accountancy, art and most other subjects.) No it wasn't. People have always known this (with a few exceptions) because it is fairly obvious from the evidence. Even if it had been a revolutionary idea, it would have been accepted because the evidence is overwhelming. And they were accepted, sometimes reluctantly, because there was extraordinary evidence for them. Even so, Einstein never really accepted all of quantum theory.

You do realise that is just a bit of journalistic sensationalism, not a real thing. And what if it is clockwork or powered by wet string (both equally well supported) And where does that 20 millihertz come from? Entanglement happens between individual particles. It is a bit bizarre to use the rule that says it involves pairs of particles to claim it applies to entire “computers” Check out the concept of “evidence” 1. Argument from authority 2. Penrose’s stature is as a mathematician and physicist 3. There are plenty of people of similar stature in the relevant fields 4. Pseudoscience is still pseudoscience even if done by scientists (there are lots of presedenti for this) ALL chemistry is due to quantum processes